Talk:Notodden Airport/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chip123456 (talk · contribs) 17:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well written and is backed up by references. If possible more images can be placed on there. I will carry on reviewing it now. --Chip123456 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article that I'm viewing is in English it would be good to see that the references could be in this language. Some are in Norwegian and whilst I respect that it is in Norway, it is on the English Wikipedia so should contain English reading language. This does need to be rectified otherwise I o others can't read through the sources to verify reliability. The article will be placed in hold for this issue to be rectified. To other editors - pleas feel free to comment with your views on the article on THIS page. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have had quite a number of GA and FLC nominations through the years, most of which rely heavily on Norwegian-language sources, and as I can recall this is the first time the issue has been raised. There are nearly no reliable sources about such a minor airport in English. The news value of the referenced issues is near zero outside Norway and no-one has yet to write an English book on the history of aviation in Telemark. According to WP:V, "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." English sources of equal quality and relevance are simply not available and thus the article must rely on Norwegian sources. I would also point that the same page states "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources." A large portion of the history is based on offline sources which requires a book to be borrowed or an subscription paper newspaper search engine to be used, so you won't be able to verify these unless you take a trip across the North Sea. For online sources, these can be verified using a translating tool, such as Google Translate. It does give the odd sentence that is difficult to comprehend, but generally works very well. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Google translate can be very unreliable and untrustworthy. I've asked an administrator for some advice and will carry on reviewing once I have received a reply which hopefully won't take too long, but I want to be sure. --Chip123456 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you need to ask an administrator. Yes, Google Translate does contain some inaccuracies (for example, it can't detect the context of the words) but you should be able to figure out from the rough translation what it means and use the context of the article and your own knowledge to figure out the correct word order and tense. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to be sure that refs in other languages were sufficient, so yes, I did. I don't want other editors thinking that it wasn't good enough and then, for example reassessing it and not trusting my judgement. --Chip123456 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Google Translate is translating other Wikipedia language articles and posting them, without copy editing, on the English Wikipedia. My experience with GT is that is sufficiently functional to read a page (I have used it to add Russian and Italian sources to WP, for instance). Yes, you get the odd euphemism which end up odd ("it has cost the pork" is a very accurate translation and makes perfect sense in Norwegian), but there is no problem verifying the contents of the newspaper articles etc. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is of course to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway. There are dozens of active participants fully capable of reading Norwegian. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I'm busy translating, you could expand the article in the following areas:

Access - including transport to/from there
Some more on location - areas surrounding it
Passenger statistics from different years
Any plans for the future
Security
Accidents/Incidents
Operations - for more of an idea of operations see Gatwick Airport (Operations)

--Chip123456 (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a source providing historical pax which I have added to the history section (thanks for the good idea). No accidents or incidents and no future plans beyond the status quo. To add information I need to be able to cite a reliable source, and I have, despite extensive searching, not found any more information on the day-to-day running or the facilities which is of encyclopedic interest. For a larger airport I would of course had made a ground transport section, but these seems to be no public transport or any other notable facilities and the only element of interest, if I could find a reference, would be the number of parking spaces. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references that I click on lead to other Wikipedia article, not reliable. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to links such as Verdens Gang? Those are links to the Wikipedia article on the newspaper in which the information was found, not a link to the source of the information. Refs 10 through 30 are from printed newspaper articles and contain sufficient information to locate the source, if the reader has access to them. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, it links to a wikipedia page, not an external source, which is required! --Chip123456 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is because it is an offline source. Offline sources are just as valid as online sources, and oftentimes contain much more information than online ones. Take a look at Wikipedia:Offline sources for an essay on the matter. Wikipedia references often contain wikilinks to aid a reader wanting to identify the source. In this instance, I have linked to the Wikipedia article on the newspaper in which the source is found. Similarly, elsewhere I might link to the author (if they have a Wikipedia article), the publisher or even the work, if it has an article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offline sources are very much accepted, although you could move the source onto this article. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source so you can't link your edits up to them, move the sources to them though! --Chip123456 (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe that the article is citing a Wikipedia article? As is very clearly stated in the reference, the source is not in the Wikipedia article about the newspaper, it is in the newspaper itself. And to access the source, you need a either copy of the newspaper or a digital archive of the newspaper. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the other part of the policy for non English sources:

When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote. When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.--Chip123456 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not provided any quotes, so that part is irrelevant here. As for the second part, providing all the sources in a footnote would be a copyright violation, and I am not interested in committing criminal acts while writing an article (see for instance Wikipedia:Copy-paste). Nor would a Wikipedia article with the sources printed verbatim in the footnotes be permitted on Wikipedia. Similarly, a translation is a derivative work which violate the copyright-holders exclusive right. If there is any content in this article you consider controversial or, after having read a machine-translated version of, still have problems verifying, then I will consider providing a translation. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

I note the request for a second opinion. I also note that which of the Good Article criteria you are not sure about are not clearly listed, so I will give an opinion about the points raised above, which appear to fall into two categories. These are:

Should the sources be in English, and should a translation be included?
Is wikipedia being used as a source to support some of the claims?

As to English sources, I suspect that there are very few, because of the subject matter, and therefore the sources either have to be in Norwegian or there would be no content which could be adequately supported by references. The job of assessing their relevance is down to the assessor, who should not need to be thinking that "other editors" may not trust their judgment. Wikipedia works by assuming good faith (most of the time), and if you have made a reasonable attempt at verifying the references, and this is clearly indicated in the review, there is no place for others questioning the outcome of the review based on that part of the Good Article criteria. As for providing both the source and a translation, I think it would make the article horribly messy, and I can find no precendent for insisting that this should be the case. With online translation so readily available, anyone who wants to check them can do so. The only possible exception to this rule would be if a controversial biographical point was being made, but it is difficult to think that information about an airport would fall into this category.

The other point seems to be that several of the journals which have been cited are also wikilinked to an article about that journal. This is no different to linking to the BBC website, for instance, but also linking the publisher (BBC) to an article about them, or quoting from a book and wikilinking to an article about the author (using the authorlink field if you are using the {cite book} template). This is standard Wikipedia practice, and is to be commended. It in no way implies that Wikipedia is being used as a source, merely that the reader can find more information on who wrote the source by following the link.

I hope this helps to resolve these two issues. You were probably going to do it anyway, but I always find the GAR template helps to focus attention on what needs to be checked and what has been assessed. It also aids other editors to understand that you have checked the article against the relevant criteria. Just replace the "===" fields with "yes" or one of the other options. At the end of the process, whether it passes or fails is still your call, and if we know what you have assessed, we will be supportive. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA REVIEW - COMMENT

Well, I have read through the sources and translated them, with the help of GT and was satisfied, so now I can see no reason of why the article should fail. To sped up things, if there haven't been any more concerns raised at this time tomorrow, it will be passed. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]