Talk:Hobart Airport/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article looks good, covering all major aspects, but the lead and history section could be a bit longer. Also, there are a number of grammatical errors in the article, particularly related to capitalization. Some comments:

The lead and the article name disagree on whether 'International' is part of the official name.
What is meant by "Primary Gateway to Tasmania."? Is it the slogan. Anyway, instead of such a subjective comment, instead state that the airport is the busiest in Tasmania or something.
There are two hyphens used as punctuations; these should instead be endashes (see WP:DASH).
I find the lead unbalanced; it overfocuses on many smaller details, but leaves out key information. Take a look at Trondheim Airport, Værnes for a proper lead. Information which should be included would be mentioning the single runway and its lenght, key airlines and key destinations, owner/operator and slightly more history, perhaps moving the history to its own paragraph. For instance the detail level on international flights and Skytraders Antarctica operations seems to have overdue weight, as is the peninsula/curfew information.
The sentence Hobart Airport currently ranks as the second fastest growing Airport in Australia, and also sits as the ninth busiest in Australia in relation to passenger numbers. presents information in the wrong order. Start with the most important (total rank) and then present the growth. If not, it reads "nationalistic" (or is it cityistic?) Plus, ninth-busiest has a hyphen.
The images that are hosted on en.wikipedia should be moved to the Commons. This tool makes it easy.
Personally I would have used File:HobartAirportTerminal.JPG in the infobox, but that is purely a matter of taste. Anyhow, the image should probably be expanded to 300px.
File:Checkin-hbtairport.jpg should use the upright syntax.
Create {{commonscat}} to the image cat on the Commons.
Personally I like to see the history section late in the article, since it is easier to understand the history after reading the other stuff, and most people are actually not that interested in the history. But again, this is a matter of taste and nothing I will hold against the article in this review.
The history section is very short.
There should be something on the establishment and building the airport, such as why was Cambridge Airport superseeded. Was it too close to the city center? Privately owned?
The operational history is lacking. When were various routes introduced? When did different airlines arrive? When were there international services?
The sentence At this time, it was known, not as Hobart International Airport, but as Lanherne Airport, after the name of the property on which it was built. This name, however, has now fallen into disuse. could be shortened down a lot, such as The airport was originally known as Lanherne Airport, after the property on which it was built.
'Lanherne Airport' should not be in italics, neither should company names (or anything in this article save for things in the references section). See WP:Italics.
Could you mention the actual runway lengths, not just the aircraft they allowed to run (keep that, just add the lengths).
"By 1957" and "In 1964" need a comma after them.
First you call it the 'Federal Government' and then the 'Commonwealth government'. A bit confusing, but perhaps okay. But stick to the all-caps, since it is a proper noun, and don't wikilink the second time.
I would not call transferring ownership from the federal to state governments "privatization".
Hyphen in front of "owned".
Comma after "in 2005" and "During December 2007".
Again, Tasmanian government and State government should here be capitalized and the second not wikilinked.
If "Federal Security" is a government agency, wikilink it. If not, it is not a proper noun, and it should be de-capitalized.
There are numberous capitalization errors; terms such as 'general aviation', 'runway', 'master plan' and 'taxiway' are always in lower caps.
What do you mean by "modern facility"? If it is only a single story and has no aerobridges, it is not what most people would regard "modern". Subjective terms like these are best left out.
Some of the terminal information could perhaps go in the history section.
Comma before and semicolon after "when Air New Zealand suspended operations,"
Drop "currently" in the freight section.
The information on Cambridge Aerodrome doesn't make sense. Is it still running or not?
The runway conforms to CASA standards. is rather redundant, as it is presumed that airports conform to federal standards. The sentence is also too short and CASA should be spelled out (which again would make the sentence long enough).
"recently" is very vague and shouldn't be used.
"understandably" is subjective, and should be removed. "desirable" is also subjective; if the airport owner has announced they are planning or want such an extension, it is better to state it as such.
Comma after "surrounded by roads".
Semicolon before and comma after "however". Comma also after the next "however".
Delink "State Government" and decapitalize 'Airport'.
'Other facilities' should be lowercase.
'In December 2005' should have a comma after it; "prominent" is a subjective term. 'Hotel' should be lower case. Don't use slashes in prose; use 'and' or 'or'.
Don't link dates.
'Big Box Development' is not capitalized, as is 'big box', 'airport', 'commonwealth land',
Don't measure things in football fields, since it is an inherently subjective term. Is it an Australian or association football field? does it include the surrounding are, or just to the line etc.
Comma in 2000; should be 2,000.
CBD needs to be spelled out, since it is a fairly uncommon term outside Australia.
Delink Federal Government, put 'including rejections' in commas
Place references after punctuation.
Comma after 'However'.
The 'airlines and destinations' section needs a large extension of the prose. The article should describe the nature of the various airlines and their route in prose and then present the list. The prose should contain sufficient references to support the list. Previous airlines (which is not capitalized) should be covered in detail in the history section.
There could be more information in the traffic section, such as the number of passengers and a description of the tables. 'Domestic Routes' is not capitalized. I find measuring in thousands in the table very difficult to read. Why are there statistics for November 2009? I would have though annual statistics were good enough; monthly statistics are here three months out of date and will force constant updates.
Take a look at WP:AIRCRASH. I would say that neither meet the criteria and should be removed.
I feel 'ground transport' is less ambiguous than access, but I will not hold it against the article. 'car' is not capitalized, as is not 'taxi rank', 'limousine',
Remove the see also sections. The first is included in a navbox, the second is a bit to remove from the subject at hand.
The airport should probably be in the 'Buildings and structures in Hobart' category.
Since the external link is in the infobox, it does not need to be in the 'external links'. It should anyway have been formatted as 'Official website'.
A lot of the references are incorrectly formatted. Some are bare, others lack dates. It is better to use ABC News Online than a domain address.
Ref 20 needs a date and author (not just publisher). Newspapers should be in italics.
Ref 7 should be the year published, not the year it covers.
There is some white space between the sections; please remove this.

I am placing the article on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arsenikk, thankyou for your quick and efficient review of this article. I have a few questions for you in regard to this review.

File:Checkin-hbtairport.jpg should use the upright syntax.... please explain
- Stick |upright into the code for the image. This will make the image taller but narrower, which is better for portrait-aligned images.
The images that are hosted on en.wikipedia should be moved to the Commons. This tool makes it easy.... I get a litle confused about licences, are all the non-commens pictures eligble for commens?
- The tool should sort this out automatically. Most images placed on en.wikipedia are here because the uploader didn't understand/couldn't bother to upload them to the Commons. It is very practical for other-language wikis. If there is a particular image that the bot doesn't handle, stick a note here, and I'll look at it.
The operational history is lacking. When were various routes introduced? When did different airlines arrive? When were there international services? - Can you give me an example article on which i can learn from?
- I have for instance written Trondheim Airport, Værnes and Oslo Airport, Fornebu. I am not saying that the history section needs to be as long as those, but they should give a generally good idea of the type of content to include. For instance, the history of the current airport at Svalbard Airport, Longyear is not particularly long, nor is it at Ben Gurion International Airport (which I did not write). The latter is shorter than what I would have liked, though.
Could you mention the actual runway lengths, not just the aircraft they allowed to run (keep that, just add the lengths).... The runway lengths are mentioned. Can you be more specific?
- Sorry, I meant in the lead; what is mentioned in the prose is fine.
  - Okay, now that I think about it, it was the history section I was referring to. What needs to be added, is the length prior to 1964, after 1964 and after 1985.
I would not call transferring ownership from the federal to state governments "privatization".... The federal government did in fact privatise the airport (and all aussie airports), ironically the tasmanian goverment purchased this particular airport. I have reworded that sentence, but would like further advise on this.
- Okay, I understand. Normally transfer from federal to local level is called 'municipalization' (akin to 'nationalization'), but in this case I understand that the State Government bought it in an open bid and ran it as a commercial enterprise.
What do you mean by "modern facility"? If it is only a single story and has no aerobridges, it is not what most people would regard "modern". Subjective terms like these are best left out.... I do not believe there are any pictures to demonstrate, but compared to what it used to look like and given that Hobart has a population of less than 200,000 it is a very good facilty. Please advise on how i can reword this.
- 'Modern' is subjective, no matter how I turn it around. My "local" airport (Trondheim) covers a smaller population, but is significantly larger—the best thing to do (given that this is an encyclopedia) is to just state facts. In a way, most people expect an airport to be "fairly modern" unless otherwise stated. Otherwise, there are two images that show what the terminal looks like; "a picture says more than a thousand words" is a Norwegian proverb that works in your favor here.

Once again thankyou for your feedback. I'm not trying to hassle you with these questions but rather clarify what you have asked of me. Thakyou for your time. Wiki ian 10:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the reply to the GAN page to keep all the feedback in one place. Most reviews involve a dialog; sometimes the reviewer is wrong or explains things difficultly, so questions are always allowed. Nice to see more people interested in airports; feel free to come with more questions or comments later in the review, if they should arise. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three weeks have gone. Have you addressed all the issues? It is nice if you could state so here, so I know when to look over the article again. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done, if you have anymore suggestions for improving this article, please tell me before passing/failing this article. I have been unlucky in finding any detailed information on the Airport's history, will this affect its chances at GA class?

Don't worry too much about the history; if there is nothing available then nothing more can be said. I've done a copyedit, however:

There are three dead links, see [1].
There are a few places lack of references. All claims not obvious (such as that Hobart is located in Australia or that an airport is a place where aircraft land, or that an airport needs a runway for fixed-winged aircraft) needs to be referenced.
I don't quite see how monthly statistics help the reader understand the airports operations. The statistics are "always" lagging a few months behind, and require a lot of maintenance. The use of annual statistics, however, greatly adds to the article.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't been worked on since this round of comments. I'd make a decision on the article now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 12:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know where Wiki Ian has gone? So it's the last paragraph left remaining?—Aaroncrick (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Well, the prose seems alright; however, the refs are horrible and incorectly formatted. With three inlcuding a major one dead. —Aaroncrick (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fail the article, then. A shame, it was pretty close, but there are still dead links and unreferenced claims. Hopefully when Ian's back, he can fix it up, and renominate it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]