Talk:Alta Airport/GA1

GA Review

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

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

• Will review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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.
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Alt Airport's regional important increased in 1990" - should it be Alta Airport?
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• "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.

• "at peak hour six aircraft were at the airport simultaneously, including two from Widerøe" - at peak hours?
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Movements at Alta gradually decreased," - traffic at Alta gradually decreased?
  • The point was more that the movements decreased dramatically without a similar drop in traffic. I have rephrased this to make it more explicit. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• "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.
  • Rephrased. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• "that the aircraft stands" - aircraft parking area? or something like that?
  • If it makes it more understandable, then why not. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• "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?
  • Thank you. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• It has a single runway - both runways ??
  • This has to do with that each runway can be operated in two directions; I have rephrased it to be less confusing. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• What are "aircraft movements"?
  • Explained (I forget that such terms are not common knowledge). Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• "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?
  • Shortened it quite a bit (it was added by another user). Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• " 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?
  • Hope that is better. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• "If the alternative with a 1,999-meter (6,558 ft) runway is selected" - not clear what is meant by "the alternative".
  • I've tried to explain it a bit better. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

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!

• Congratulations! Well done. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)