Talk:Omak Airport

Omak Airport was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 29, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Aviation: Airports Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

Start

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the airport project.

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Okanagan Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Okanagan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Okanagan and Okanogan regions of British Columbia, Canada and Washington, United States, in addition to their native people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OkanaganWikipedia:WikiProject OkanaganTemplate:WikiProject OkanaganOkanagan articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Omak Airport/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Alanchi1 (talk · contribs) 21:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a nice piece of work, content is very thorough and adequately meets the good article criteria.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The prose of this article is clear and concise. Grammar and spelling is all correct as well. Follows similar style and structure as other airport articles.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The sources sufficiently cover material throughout the page. References seem verifiable and accurate.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Maintains NPOV stance throughout the article.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Edit History shows evidence of a very stable article.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images and map are appropriate and significantly strengthen article. Images are all tagged appropriately.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Good job!

So is this going to be reviewed? Got a skim but still needs a look through. Wizardman 15:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by another editor

I would question "The prose of this article is clear and concise. Grammar and spelling is all correct as well." Taking the first few sentences from the Improvements section:

"After being considered for upgrading in December 1956, the Omak City Council thought that what would become known the Omak Airport's boundary lighting required improvements. The city council and Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) gathered over $16,000 for upgrades; 48.28 percent was funded by the council, while the remaining 52 percent was paid for by the CAA. The ordinance, however, covered approximately $1,000 of Omak City Council's share.[9] By March 1957, these suggestions were set as a high priority, with numerous companies biding to assist with its improvement; the CAA was notified. City council suggested that Wenatchee's Regan Electric, who bid $17,672, would have a positive impact on these upgrades. While it was noted that an improvement contract for its boundary lighting should be made with an organization by 120 work days, the addition of new set of electric cables were also proposed for the airport."

"what would become known the Omak Airport's boundary lighting". known as? And the parenthetical "what would become known the Omak Airport's" would be much better placed after "boundary lighting", so: "the Council thought that the boundary lighting of what would become known as Omak Airport required improvements."
"The ordinance, however, covered approximately $1,000 of Omak City Council's share." This is very unclear and bears little resemblance to what the newspaper article (ref 9) actually says about the $1000.
"Regan Electric ... would have a positive impact on these upgrades." What does this mean?
"an improvement contract should be made with an organization by 120 work days" is also very unclear. Is it "within 120 working days" or what? Checking the ref, the 120 days was the duration of the contract, but this needs to be clear.
"the addition of new set of electric cables" Should it be "the addition of a new set..."?

My impression is that the article needs a good copy edit for grammer and flow. Sorry if this is a bit negative, but good articles need to be written in good English. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a go at copyediting the Origin section, and the first paragraph of the Improvements section, but it has needed fairly radical surgery to reflect what the refs actually support. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above I'm failing this, since it'll need a lot of work to be cleaned up. Wizardman 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]