Talk:Nashville International Airport/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pzoxicuvybtnrm (talk · contribs) 06:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See below for comments.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See below for comments.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Some information about the airport is missing; see below for comments.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   For now, I am going to fail this article. It can be renominated at a later time when the issues are fixed.

Lead

• Sections of the first paragraph are choppy.
• Portions of the lead should be described in the body and summarized in the lead, not described in the lead.
• More information about the history of the airport needs to be added to the lead.
• References should be included in the body on specific facts, not in the lead.

History

• Entire areas such as the first paragraph of the Jet Service section, the lead part of the Continued expansion and modernization section, and the Airline lounges section are all unsourced.
• Works Progress Administration should not be linked twice.
• Things should be bolded in the lead, as they are, not here.
• The history of Concourse D should probably be described here.

Concourses, airlines, and destinations

• The other concourses need to be described.
• Are there multiple terminals? If so, describe so. The section describing the Atlantic Aviation Terminal needs to explain what it is.

Statistics

• Text and other explanation about statistics, i.e. traffic, should probably be included.

Cargo facilities

• The entire section is unreferenced.

References

• USDOT, MTAA and MNA probably need to be spelled out every time.
• Organizations should be linked at the first instance of their mention in references.
• More elaborate titles should be used to distinguish between the accident descriptions.

Thanks for the review, Pzoxicuvybtnrm. This is some good feedback. Anyone else...any help in fixing these will be greatly appreciated! nf utvol (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)