Talk:Floyd Bennett Field/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dmartin969 (talk · contribs) 22:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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:
· · ·

This is my preliminary review only, I will revisit the page regularly over the coming days. My main concern is the "notable flights" section which is very disorganised and potentially overly long. I would recommend a maximum of 10-12 listing of only basic information about the most important flights. Additionally the lead needs citations.

@Dmartin969: Thanks for the comments. I will trim the "notable flights" section, but my general feeling is that many of these flights are notable (most are blue links). Also, per WP:CITELEAD, as long as the info is cited in the body and isn't controversial, the lead doesn't necessarily need citations. It clogs up the lead editing area, and these citations already exist in the article. epicgenius (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Everything looks great with those updates. Dmartin969 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]