Jump to content

Talk:Saint-Inglevert Airfield/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 20:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will make notes as I go. Can I suggest you add responses to the relevant sections, to make it easier to see what has been done, and what still needs to be done. I will review the lead at the end, once the main body of the article has been checked.

References

[edit]

There are a few problems here.

  • Ref 1 is dead. Unfortunately it is used 14 times. It may be available on an archive.
  • The link to Vitry-en-Artois in Note 2 is dead.
    •  Fixed - alternative source found for the image. Mjroots (talk)
  • Ref 46 Aeroclub du Boulonnais no longer finds the relevant page and is redirected to the home page.
    •  Fixed - fortunately ref 47 gave the date too. Mjroots (talk)

Location

[edit]
  • Are there any details of its area available?
    • Not exactly sure what you mean here. The airfield's location between the two villages is given, and its location in relation to the nearest major town in given. Coordinates already appear in the infobox, but could be added here if desired. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First World War

[edit]
  • "flying the Handley Page O/400" sounds like there was only one of them. Suggest "flying Handley Page O/400 aircraft" or somesuch.
  • Three occurences of "also" in close proximity does not read well. Suggest rewording.

Between the wars

[edit]
  • I am not objecting to chronological order. The issue is whether the text reads well. Since you have mentioned it, I note that the Lympne GA review picked up on the same issue, suggesting that a good copyedit was required. Some conjunctions, introductory phrases and linking text would help the flow considerably.
  • Several mentions of "it was notified". Is this a formal process connected with airfields? If so, it needs a little explanation on first occurence.
    • The phrase "it was notified" means that an Notice to Airmen had been issued. A formal process of the relevant Civil Aviation Authority (DGAC or CAA as appropriate in this case). The term is already wikilinked earlier in the paragraph. Would a second wikilink be of benifit here? Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a second wikilink is necessary. It is not clear that "it was notified" implies that a Notice to Airmen was issued. Your text above is what is required. Somethink to link "it was notified" and "notice to airmen" and "Civil Aviation Authority" together, so that readers carry on reading, rather than clicking to find out what it means. Having read the article, the reader should be able to understand what "it was notified" means. For the details of how it works, they can follow the link. (again, same issue was raised for Lympne GAR).
  • That might work quite well.
  • Was the flight of the Farman F.60 Goliath exceptional in some way? Distance? Payload? Needs explanation.
  • "three 4.5 in live shells". Is the "in" inches? If so it needs expanding and converting to metric.
  • Paragraph 2 reads like a series of disconnected facts. It needs a few extra words to link the various thoughts together.
  • "At a meeting ... resulted in a number of resolutions" doesn't quite make sense. Needs reworking.
  • Charles Fauval's world record. Was it for distance covered or some other achievement?
  • Final para is all "On [date] ..." It needs variety, and maybe an intro: "The airfield was used by several notable people ..." to link the bits together.
  • Bigger para is good. So then, "Several notable people visited the airfield in 1935 and 1936, including ..." might work. Again, it is the flow of the text, not its structure that needs tweaking.

Second world war

[edit]

Post war

[edit]
  • Is the new hanger still planned or has it been built? (Or don't we know?)

Other issues

[edit]
  • It is a shame there is no image. There are a couple of great ones on the net, but none that I can find with a creative commons licence.


The formal bit

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See comments above
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

All issues have now been fixed. Congratulations. I am awarding the article GA status. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]