Talk:Brønnøysund Airport/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Compdude123 (talk · contribs) 22:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Hello, this is my first GA review so bear with me. I know you've done lots of GA reviews, so if I'm missing anything, please let me know. —Comp dude¹²³ 22:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Most of the sources are in Norwegian, and since I don't speak that language, I cannot verify any of the sources. Hopefully you have done this.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lead

The first issue I noticed is that the lead and infobox both state two different runway lengths for the same runway. The infobox says the runway is 1,200 m long whereas the lead says it's 1,440 meters long. Please correct whichever one is wrong.
- Fixed. The confusion is because only 1,200 m can actually be used (as described in the facilities section), but the longer is the correct number. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It has of a 1,440-meter (4,720 ft) runway numbered 04–22..." – Remove the "of".
- Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Near-by" isn't normally hyphenated; it's usually written as "nearby."
- Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

The following two sentences could be combined: "The following thirteen years Brønnøysund only saw occasional landings. Norwegian Air Lines started a service from Bergen to Tromsø on 7 June 1935, which included a stop at the harbor in Brønnøysund." Would suggest saying something like "Brønnøysund only saw occasional landings until 7 June 1935, when Norwegian Air Lines started a service from Bergen to Tromsø with a stop at the harbor in Brønnøysund."
- Sure. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The aircraft turned out to have too little capacity" – Consider saying something more concise, like "The aircraft turned out to be too small...".
- My thought here is that the aircraft were replaced because they had too few seats (=capacity), but if other people don't understand it the way I do I can always convert to small. For a aviation-oriented audience I would have written "too low pax". Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It now says "The aircraft turned out to have too small..." – The "have" should be changed to "be" in order to correct this grammatical error. Or you could say "The aircraft's passenger capacity was too small..." —Comp dude¹²³ 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you fix this please? Thanks, Comp dude¹²³ 16:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More reviewing to come... —Comp dude¹²³ 22:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commencing the review. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph it says "Seaplane routes resumed from 1947 using the Junker Ju 52." First of all it would make more sense to say "in 1947" instead of "from 1947;" also, pluralize "Junker." —Comp dude¹²³ 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Sud Aviation Caravelle was about to the phased into use..." – The "the" should be changed to a "be" so that the phrase makes sense. And I would suggest saying that the Caravelle was a jet aircraft. —Comp dude¹²³ 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I forget trivialities such that not everyone in the world knows what a Caravelle is. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, "airport" should be plural. —Comp dude¹²³ 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"As on of very few regional airport, Brønnøysund Airport received a restaurant." – This sentence doesn't make much sense, and it should be rewritten. Is it trying to say that Brønnøysund Airport is one of the few regional airports with a restaurant? —Comp dude¹²³ 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing "on" to "one" should make it more understandable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Trønderfly started an air ambulance services" – "Services" should not be plural. —Comp dude¹²³ 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"As the first airport in the world, Brønnøysund received SCAT-I on 29 October 2007." What is SCAT-I? Since it's a red link you should explain what that is. It is explained in the "Facilities" section but that's later in the article. —Comp dude¹²³ 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Thon Hotel Torghatten opened in October 2009 and an airport surveillance radar was installed in 2010, as the first at a regional airport in Norway." Change to "Thon Hotel Torghatten opened in October 2009 and an airport surveillance radar was installed in 2010, making Brønnøysund the first regional airport in Norway to have one." —Comp dude¹²³ 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the last paragraph, Statoil should be linked since that's the first mention of that company in this article. —Comp dude¹²³ 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This caused Widerøe to increased the number of direct flights to Oslo..." — Change "increased" to "increase." —Comp dude¹²³ 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are many instances in this section where it says something like "So-and-so introduced such-and-such from April 2005," for example. It should really say "in April 2005" or "starting April 2005." The word "from" isn't really the right word to use in cases where the statement doesn't describe a period of time where the event takes place. —Comp dude¹²³ 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment. "From" is a Norwegianization and when I am reading in Norwegian and writing in English my grammar tends to drop a few notches. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far, so good. Looks like there's just some minor changes you need to make. Also, I take it you have checked all the references to make sure they provide proper verification for the text in question, right? I can't really do this myself since most of this article's sources are in Norwegian, a language I don't know. —Comp dude¹²³ 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All information is properly cited in the inline references. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities

Looks fine; don't see anything wrong with the section. —Comp dude¹²³ 18:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Airlines and destinations

Nothing to comment. —Comp dude¹²³ 18:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents and accidents

I'm not sure if the second incident really needs to be listed, given the fact that although it originated from this airport, it didn't take place really close by. It's up to you to decide whether it should be there; even Air France Flight 447 is listed on Rio de Janeiro-Galeão International Airport even though the aircraft crashed thousands of miles away from Rio de Janiero. —Comp dude¹²³ 18:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did think twice about this, but I included it not so much because Brønnøysund was the origin but because it was a "shuttle service" based at the airport. I agree that accidents shouldn't be included just because they originated at the airport. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Future

Not sure why this info needs to be in its own section. I think it should be moved to the history section. —Comp dude¹²³ 18:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can move it to the history. The future is not history, but I in this case it is more or less covering a past proposal for expansion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will be offline from this afternoon until Sunday evening, so I will not be able to respond until then. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put this article on hold. There is just one more thing in the history section I need you to fix. —Comp dude¹²³ 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The one outstanding issue has been fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great, this is now a good article. Congratulations! —Comp dude¹²³ 06:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]