Jump to content

Talk:Alta Airport/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take so long. Everything looks good. I just have a question and a few prose niggles.

  • "Alta Airport is owned and operated by the state-owned Avinor, and served 335,621 passengers in 2011, making it the busiest airport in Finnmark." - this is in the lede but doesn't seem to be supported in the article.
  • "Bukta had 2,000 annual passengers in 1957,[10] and the route was flown daily during the summer from 1960." - beginning in 1960?
    • Rephrased to emphasize that it was a summer-only route.
  • "Movements at Alta gradually decreased," - traffic at Alta gradually decreased?
  • "with people from Nordkapp to a much greater extent would drive to Alta for their long-haul flights" - seems clumsy - can it be reworded? e.g. More people from Nordkapp drove to Alta for their long-haul fights.
  • "Another concern was the lack of capacity, as the airport could only had 150 simultaneous passengers and two gates." - could only handle 150 passengers simultaneously at two gates?
  • "One problem with these car connections is that they pass the Sennalandet mountain which sometimes is closed due to snow storm." - that they travel through a pass in the Sennalandet mountain, which is sometimes closed by snow storms?
  • " 50-passenger -300 series to Tromsø and the 39-passenger -100 series on services to regional airport." - do you describe somewhere what these are? Also, can you make sure that "39-passenger -100 series" doesn't get separated by line breaks as it does on my machine?

I've made a few edits that you're free to change.[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review and comments; they are most useful and have helped make the article even better. I have acted upon them all. Arsenikk (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
    b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary
    c. no original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    no edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass!