Talk:Nuuk Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Nuuk Airport was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject Aviation / Airports (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the airport project.
WikiProject Greenland (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greenland. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: WackyWace you talkin' to me? 17:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

  • “linking the capital with several towns in western and south-western part of the country” - should that not be “linking the capital with several towns in western and south-western parts of the country”
Agreed. I would like to see a "the" before "western" as well. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • “With connections to Iceland, Nuuk Airport is also one of 6 international airports in Greenland.” - why is the “also” needed?
Agreed. The "also" is unnecessary. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The second sentence in the second paragraph is a run-on sentence. I would end it after "next four decades." Then start a new sentence. However the second half of this sentence is not apparent to me what point is being made. Maybe the sentence(s) should be turned around and start with the second half first when you break it up. Currently it does not make any point to me. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the third paragraph has two possible points: (1) the original planners did a poor job of laying out the airport to service large airlines, or (2) the airport was designed before large airliners existed, but now that they do, the airport cannot handle them for multiple reasons. I would like to see that sentence rewritten to reflect which idea is more true (if we have any indication from the sources). § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • “not an acceptable option also due to the approach over the urbanized area of the outlying districts of Nuuk” - perhaps “not a realistic option", rather than “not an acceptable option”.
Agreed. The "realistic" word sounds less "permissive" and more factual. The word "also" in that sentence is not required and sounds awkward. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • In a top notch article, the inline citations would be included either in a sentence, at the end of a sentence, or at the end of a paragraph; with at least one citation in a paragraph somewhere. Wikipedia is a source for information backed up by other sources, not primary research. Without the citations it is hard for others to know if you have a source or not in a particular paragraph. The summary section is sometimes less stringent, but it is a good practice to do it anyway. There is no harm to include the inline source at least once per paragraph. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

History[edit]

  • I am confused in the "Waterplane era" section with the first sentence. The entire era was covered in two sentences. Did nothing else happen in that era? Maybe it was not an era after all. When eras are listed sequentially, there is often a timeline associated (at least date ranges). If they are there, they are kind of hidden in the text possibly too much. I would make the years more prominent. In the first sentence what does Air Greenland and Greenlandair have to do with each other? Was there any other information about the crash available? Did it cause any changes to be made? Was that the only crash, or was it somehow notable? It looks like the notability was it contributed to the move to the Helicopter era. In that case I think the two need to be merged. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I’m sceptical about how you mention the accident regarding the PBY Catalina in 1962. Whilst you go on to discuss this, it seems a bit odd to mention one accident here, but also to have an ‘Accidents and incidents’ section where you mention a crash in 2008. Would you consider perhaps removing the ‘Accidents and incidents’ section altogether, and implementing the sentence about the 2008 crash in the history section?
A Agreed. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I’m also sceptical about how the airport was built in the 1960s, yet a good proportion of the history section is taken up with how Greenlandair used the nearby Nook Port as a landing ground. Interesting trivia perhaps, but I’m not sure as to how it is relevant to the airport.
  • I was thinking about this as well. There is no mention of the building of the heliport, until the end of that paragraph when we find out a 2007 airport replaced the heliport. I think there should be something more about the heliport and how that served the area for so long. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • “With the airport being limited to serving small planes, the possibilities of international connections remain limited” - this sentence uses “limited” twice in short succession.
  • The "Helicopter era" says "the airport was built there in 2007, replacing the old heliport." The "Regional airport network" says the Nuuk Airport was built in 1979. Are these different airports? If yes these sentences need to be rewritten to reflect that." § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The number of inline source notations is exceptional, however it may be overdone with common sources. What I mean is if a paragraph is only supported by one source, there is no need to add multiple footnotes. Just use the one footnote at the end of the paragraph, unless the sentences or points being made are possibly debatable or contriversal. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The section titled "Beyond schedule" does not make sense to me. I don't see anything about a schedule in that paragraph. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • When the term "network" is used without the complete "airport network" it sounds like we are talking about computer networks. I recommend "network" would keep "airport" in front of it. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Geography[edit]

  • The first paragraph of the Runway expansion section - does that really belong there? It seems to be describing the runway and what it is made of, not of the problems with its expansion.
  • Under "Runway expansion" the statement "...an undulating slope under the Ukkusissat mountain..." makes me thing it goes under the mountain like a tunnel. Would it read better as "...an undulating slope at the base of the ..."? § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Airlines and destinations[edit]

  • Consider Wikilinking the destinations.

References[edit]

  • Consider splitting the references into two columns.
  • Rather than saying “(in Danish)” after every Danish reference, consider using the Da icon template.

Overall[edit]

  • Most of the paragraphs are just a few sentences. Most of the sections are just one small paragraph. Overall I think this article needs more work to get it to good article status. With the changes recommended it can probably be graded as a "B class" based on grammar and overall organization. But I will mention again that the number of citations is outstanding. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Result[edit]

Because of the number of issues raised above by myself and Music Sorter, I have taken the decision to fail this article's first GAN. I feel that because the issues are quite major, they will take over a week to sort, or possibly longer since the nominator has not edited for several days. Once the issues have been addressed, please feel free to renominate the article. Thanks, WackyWace you talkin' to me? 11:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with this decision. § Music Sorter § (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)