Talk:International airport/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 02:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and I'll be reviewing this excellent article! This will be awesome :) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: I do my review in a style with a main review covering the GA criteria, a prose review, and then a source review. See this review for an example.

Hi Brandon, sorry for the delayed reply. Thanks for reviewing this article. I have gone through the notes written thus far, and you have notated to see prose/source sections, but those sections are empty. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Perhaps your still preparing your notes. Please note, it may take me a couple of days to see and respond to your comments as I've had some personal matters (new job, etc..) come up recently which are taking most of my attention and thus limiting my time on Wikipedia. David Condrey ^{log talk} 05:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Main Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Looks good from a first glance. Please see prose review for more in-depth changes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MOS guidelines are followed. Good lengthy (but not too long) lead.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Please see source review for more info. All issues fixed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Please see source review for more info. All issues fixed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All information is cited in the article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article covers everything it should.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It doesn't veer off topic at any point in the article/go into too much detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Everything is balanced in the article, in terms of neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars/arguments that I've seen.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pictures's copyright statuses are all good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions look great.
	7. Overall assessment.	Great job fixing the issues I stated. Pass. --Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 03:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Prose Review

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use Y or  Done If the change was only partially done use Y, and N or  Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

• Lead

"Buildings, operations and management have become increasingly sophisticated since the mid 20th century."

Add a comma after sophisticated.

Y Not sure I would tend to say it's better grammatically without the comma but could go either way. David Condrey ^{log talk} 10:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(Extra Note) Is referencing in the lead necessary? I read here that you didn't need to.

Y

• History

"Four-engined land planes being unavailable for over-water operations to international destinations, flying boats became part of the solution." "Maybe say "...international destinations, thus/therefore flying boats became part..."

Y Additional improvements of same section:improved refs, added wiki-links, removed red-links, and rewrote last paragraph. David Condrey ^{log talk} 07:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Design and Construction

No issues.

• Operations and Management

(Under standards subsection) "...airports organized themselves under Airport Operators Council, later Airports Council International..."

Maybe say "airports organized themselves under the Airport Operators Council, later the Airports Council International..." (Tell me if this sounds weird.)

Y Rewritten as "In January 1948, 19 representatives from various US commercial airports met for the first time in New York City to seek resolution to common problems they each faced, which initiated the formation of the Airport Operators Council, which later became Airports Council International – North America (ACI-NA). This group included representatives from Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Memphis, Miami, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York-Newark, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Francisco and Washington." David Condrey ^{log talk} 10:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Airport names

"Toponyms are one of the commonest source..."

How about "Toponyms are one of the most common source..."

Y So as to utilize the original naming of the wikilinked article, I rewrote is as "Toponymy is one of the most common sources for the naming of airports"

• Notable airports

No issues.

Source Review

No issues, except for maybe ref 14. Are "Subscribe to read the full story..." references ok? EuroCarGT fixed it here Didn't know that there was a |subscribe=yes parameter. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 14:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)