Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Assessment

Top and High Importance

I think that a new category, or a redefinition of High importance needs to take place. If you look at the London airports, Heathrow and Gatwick are obviously Top importance, but Stansted, Luton and City are significantly less importance. They are, however, more important than London-Southend which has almost no scheduled service, and is the example for a High ranked airport. Please advise... Flymeoutofhere 17:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that one! You see, I'm a Yank and not very knowledgable when it comes to European airports. I did my best to try and give examples of them in the ranking section, but apparently I goofed a little. If you are saying you agree with the current standards for ranking and only disagree with the examples I gave, by all means update them accordingly. If you're disagreeing with the criteria I tried to set forth for the importance scale, then please state here which so we can work towards a consensus. Good call, and thanks! thadius856_talk 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No that looks fine now-I thought that was what might of happened! I'll update Flymeoutofhere 10:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Importance scale

I went to rate the Airports in Nunavut and found that only, Alert Airport (High), Baker Lake Water Aerodrome, Cambridge Bay Water Aerodrome, Eureka Airport (Canada), Lupin Airport, Tanquary Fiord Airport (all Low), Iqaluit Airport and Rankin Inlet Airport (Mid) can be placed in the current system. Strangely enough because Alert is a military base it would be listed as the same importance as RAF Croughton or Nellis Air Force Base, which does not seem quite right. All the other airports in Nunavut (and other places) have no place to be listed, so I propose the following changes.

Status - Top

Change "Airport sites of famous/major aviation accidents:" to "Airport sites of famous/major aviation incidents:"

This would then be able to include Entebbe International Airport and places like that.

Status - High

Change "Minor active duty or somewhat historic military installations:" to "Medium active duty or somewhat historic military installations:"

Add "Closed or abandoned airports of high historic significance:"

The first would allow for the removal of Alert. The second would cover places such as Croydon Airport.

Status - Mid

Change "Medium airports and small reliever airports with mostly unscheduled service:" to "Medium airports (with or without scheduled services) and small airports with scheduled services:"

Add "Closed or abandoned airports of moderate historic significance:"

Change "Inactive military installations:" to "Minor active duty or minor historic military installations:"

The first removes the US only term "reliever", and if you look at FAA airport categories it says that "...reliever airports, which are essentially large general-aviation airports...". This also allows for all the other Nunavut (and other places) airports to have a proper rating. The second would cover places such as Aérodrome Saint-Louis. The third would allow for places like Alert Airport.

Status - Low

Add "Closed or abandoned military or civillian airports without historic significance:"

This would cover places like Redvers Airport.

CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make the changes, as they make some pretty good sense, with a few minor exceptions:

Change "Airport sites of famous/major aviation accidents:" to "Airport sites of famous/major aviation incidents:"

I'm going to make "it accidents/incidents", since they're two entirely different things. The traditional definitions I've heard for accident is somewhere along the lines of "includes serious injury or death; loss of hull or damage substantial enough to warrant loss of airworthiness; any onboard fire, except engine flareout", etc. Incidents would be just about anything else that still gets reported, like a loss of power on climbout resulting in a mayday and return to landing or an aborted takeoff due to mechanical failure.

I'm entirely in favor of the changes to High, Mid and Low exactly as you stated them. I'm also going to emphasize on the project page that the ratings are somewhat objective and the examples are not set in stone. :) thadius856_talk 17:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found one more thing just now when making the changes. Where would we place closed military installations with of moderate significance?

Mid: Closed or abandoned airports of moderate historic significance

Low: Closed or abandoned military or civillian airports without historical significance

I'm going to change Mid to read:

Mid: Closed or abandoned military or civillian airports of moderate historical significance

I believe this was your intent. Inform me if I'm wrong. thadius856_talk 17:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great and will make it easier to sort them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to suggest a little more tweaking. The description "very large airports with international airline service" is a little vague. Also, none of the other categories mention international service. Small airports can have international service, but that doesn't mean they're highly important. For example, I don't think anyone would say T.F. Green Airport is top importance, but it has flights to the Azores. Also, some airports that are mostly domestic are very important (such as Denver). I think any airport in the top 30 world's busiest should qualify for top importance. So, I suggest the descriptions say:

Top - Major international airports and others with a very high traffic volume
High - Large international and national airports with scheduled service
Mid - Medium airports (with or without scheduled service) and small regional airports with scheduled service
Low - Same as now

DB (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, DB. The problem is that there's only 4 levels for importance. If we had 5, we could really be a bit more specific. Oh, and I'd likely tag T.F. Green Airport as mid myself. They do have quite a few carriers, but they're entirely regional. :) thadius856_talk 18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions for importance

I was just looking through all the articles in Category:Airports that do not have project banners and adding them appropriately. So far, I've found that far less than 2% are missing banners. When adding them, I've been tagging for class and importance as well.

The problem is our definitions. I've found many airports (mostly in Alaska) where the only scheduled passenger service is subsidized by the Essential Air Service act, meaning the airport would not be able to provide scheduled service without federal financial assistance. I've been ranking them as if they didn't have passenger service, and thus most so far are of Low importance. I suggest this be an exception to the criteria we set, but I'd like some feedback first. thadius856_talk 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe low should have a note to include regional airports served by no more than one airline? DB (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but how'd you arrive as 1 for the number? Why not two or three or...? Just curious. thadius856_talk 19:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there aren't any airports with Essential Air Service that have more than one airline serving them. If there's more than one, it implies it's a small regional airport (i.e. mid-level). DB (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! :) thadius856_talk 07:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

So, I figured I'd just show you guys an update on how the assessment has been going lately. The first table was created on the first day this department existed, the second being the first day we switched to the new statistics format and the third being as of this writing.

**Airport articles**
Quality
FA	1
GA	1
B	3
Start	1
Stub	3
Unassessed	4541
Importance
Top	3
High	1
Mid	1
Low	3
Total: 4550

Airport articles		Importance
Airport articles		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Class	FA	1					1
	A	1					1
	GA	2					2
	B	26	11	5	2	2	46
	Start	40	23	28	3	17	111
	Stub	13	22	93	524	2119	2771
	Unassessed		1		1	1789	1791
	Total	83	57	126	530	3927	4723

Airport articles		Importance
Airport articles		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Class
	FA	1					1
	A	2					2
	GA	2	1				3
	B	28	12	5	2		47
	Start	42	51	56	14	16	179
	Stub	13	34	185	625	2100	2957
	Unassessed	1				1696	1697
	Total	89	98	246	641	3812	4886

As you can tell, we've picked up more than 330 articles in just over a month and assessed about the same amount. We still have a long ways to go, but we'll get it done! :) thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 08:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

The importance scale seems to be vague here, and I've seen some airports improperly tagged. For example, for those who know what I'm talking about, are we talking about, say, in the US for example, class B airports being top-importance, class C airports being high importance, and so on? —Pilotguy (push to talk) 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat. O'Hare International Airport (class B) is top importance, while [Chicago] Midway Airport (class C) is high importance. However, a class B is not always top and a class C is not always high. Look at First Flight Airport, for example. It's top importance, not even a class C. The same holds true for Tenerife North Airport, site of the Tenerife disaster.

Like department page states, assessments are somewhat subjective. When in doubt, you could always just ask here. :) thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 00:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really Need to Clarify Importance Scale

There needs to be a major clarification concerning Top and High importance airports. I am trying to rank many airports and contribute to the project, but even after reading the descriptions, looking at lists, and talking with others, I am confused. For example, Boryspil Airport is ranked as a top airport, as are Turin International Airport, etc. Those airports only have about 3 million passengers per year. On the other hand, Logan International Airport (27 million/year), Dusseldorf (17 million), etc, etc. are all ranked as "High". That seems to make absolutely no sense. A very clear passenger/usage # should be set for each category. For example, Top: >15 million, High: 1 million-15 million, Mid: >1 million, Low: no scheduled service. That would allow for a much clearer designation. Any futher clarification, such as major accidents could cause the ranking to increase. Any suggestions how to make the rankings far, far clearer? (I still believe other criteria should be used, so that important "no service" airports will be ranked higher). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gittinsj (talk • contribs)

I definitely don't think Torino should be considered Top. Kiev probably shouldn't either. One question is whether importance should be considered globally or within each country (i.e. should an airport such as Boryspil or Luxembourg-Findel be ranked as top since those are the largest in their respective countries, despite their relatively small size on an international scale?). Dusseldorf and Logan, despite having a large number of passengers per year, are not highly important airports internationally, either. There should be a more concrete description of each importance level, especially to clarify top vs. large. DB (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current definition of Top is "Very Large Airports with International Service". Boston has flights to 17 other countries. Dusseldorf has even more. They are both international airports, and they are both very large (at least larger than Borispyl or Luxembourg). I'm not saying that the latter two shouldn't be ranked higher, but the others do fit the definition. To not include Boston, Dusseldorf, etc. would suggest that the current definition is problematic. By trying to have so many different criterion for rankings, I think the system becomes very convoluted. On the other hand, Memphis International Airport has only one international flight, but the highest cargo volume, and it is rated Top. Do we look at total passenger volume, international passenger volume, cargo volume, and if so, together or separately? If the airport has a very high passenger volume, but lower international passenger volume, does that invalidate its importance? Gittinsj 05:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)gittinsj[reply]

New WPAVIATION banner, and the importance scale.

The new multi-project banner, {{WPAVIATION}}, does not use the importance scale. Reading over the comments here, I think that this project is having the same problems that other projects are, in that the ratings applied by users are too subjective, and based upon their personal opinions as to the importance of an article/subject. Is it alright with the Airports project members if the importance scale is dropped when the airport articles are retagged with {{WPAVIATION}}? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 07:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with dropping the importance scale. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]