Talk:Svalbard Airport/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

Does the title of the article need to be "Svalbard Airport, Longyear"? If this is the only Svalbard Airport, then the title can simply be "Svalbard Airport". Otherwise, I would suggest renaming the article "Svalbard Airport (Longyear)" as that form is more common in disambiguating places.
It is correct. Norwegian airports have the somewhat weird naming convention of "City Airport, Location". So the "Longyear" is not disambiguation, it is part of the official name. Trust me, you are not the first person to wonder about this ;)
In the sentence "However, these aircraft never landed until 9 February 1959—a resident had become seriously ill, and needed to be flown to mainland Norway for treatment", I would suggest changing the hyphen to "when" and would remove the comma after "ill".
"to for a regular service"? either "to" or "for" needs to be removed.
In sentence "Due to lack of runway lights, flights could only be done during daylight, thus hindering flights during parts of December and January, when the sun never rises.", remove comma after "January".
Change "flight number 100 was made" to "the 100th flight was made"
References 3 and 4 are the same and should be merged.
In sentence "In 1989, parts of the runway were re-insulated, giving these areas that previously had been the worst, an acceptable solution", remove comma after "worst".
There are some short sentences within the Services section and other parts of the article. Can these be combined with other sentences?
Hope I managed to fix it up sufficiently.
Are there citations available for the Airlines and destinations table?
Hm. The idea was that the references were in the underlying text. I have seen destination lists without references pass FA, but I do actually see your point, so I doubled up the references from the text to the list.

I am placing the article on hold. Dough4872 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. This must be the quickest review I have experienced :) Hopefully, everything should now be to your liking. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will pass the article. Dough4872 (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]