Talk:Båtsfjord Airport/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Neonblak (talk · contribs) 17:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shame that this has been waiting for so long. I will rectify that. I have done an initial read-through and the prose is smooth and concise. I should complete the review sometime today, as the article is fairly short.Neonblak ^talk - 17:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Lead - No issues, summarizes the article well. All three photos used are released through Creative Commons, and the article is free from bad disamb links. All references are active and relevant to the topic.

History

"The first airline to operate to Båtsfjord were Varangfly, later renamed Norving, who flew seaplane taxi and ambulance flights in the early 1960s." - Shouldn't is be "Båtsfjord was Varangfly"? Single Airline, and refering to one entity? Also, I would wikify seaplane and ambulance flights (med air?).
"The CAA stated that instead the a new airport should be built..." - Remove the "a".
"In April 1995 when Parliament decided to nationalize twenty-six regional airports owned by their respective municipalities. They also debated a proposal to build a new airport in Båtsfjord." - Was this suppose to be one sentence? "In April 1995, when Parliament decided to nationalize twenty-six regional airports owned by their respective municipalities, they also debated a proposal to build a new airport in Båtsfjord."

I would also use non-breaking spaces in all the dates like "April 1995" and "9 September 1999", or any other instances of a number relating directly to word following it, like measurements "17 steps" and "120 passengers".

That's all I saw, the rest looks great. The information appears factual, neutral, free from original research, stable, broad enough in coverage with no unnecessary irrelevant information. I will put this on hold until these few concerns are address, and look forward to passing this article.Neonblak ^talk - 19:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how long you wish to wait on this, but User:Arsenikk has been inactive for no apparent reason for more than two months. Instead of waiting indefinitely for him to come back, maybe you should close the review. You could pass or fail the article; the former because the issues appear to be minor and fixable by anyone who wishes to be bold, or the latter because Arsenikk can easily renominate it when he returns. V C 14:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to wait indefinitely, but I didn't think there was much harm in being patient. Just a few days ago, I look into the guidelines to see if it prohibited me from making the changes myself and then passing the article. If it were content issues, I would fail and close it, but wasn't sure on grounds of grammar and punctuation. Since I have little plans today, I may just make the changes myself and pass it.Neonblak ^talk - 15:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]