Talk:Kirkenes Airport/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Will review soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

review

This is a very intense article - many details about companies and airplanes and routes. I did't quite understand it without a very intense read. (What is the population of Høybuktmoen?) So the airport's primary importance is that it serves as a "hub" in eastern Finnmark? What kind of passengers are on these flights? (It seems there just isn't sufficient population to support the airport year round with such a climate in the Arctic Circle? Overall, the article is quite interesting because, for one thing, I'd never heard of Finmark until I started reading your articles, so it's fascinating to learn what happens there.

Finnmark is the one county of Norway I've never been to; although I previously lived north of the Arctic Circle, Finnmark is a real wilderness and I hope to go there sometime. I simply borrowed some books at the library about Sør-Varanger and writing some articles about it. Don't think Høybuktmoen has a permanent population. The distance from Kirkenes to Oslo is about that of from Oslo to Milano, so everyone opts to fly instead of drive. And Norwegians fly a lot more than other people (more than twice as much as Spaniards, who fly the second-most), so there is a high demand for air transport in Norway, even with low population. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Lede

• Very good - nice and clear

History

• I think its essential to have subheadings to give the history section some structure and orient the reader.

• perhaps subheadings by time frames
• or by historical periods - what the important issues were - e.g. the part involving the war, German occupation, and its aftermath could be one subsection.

• • Sure, the history was a bit long. I've made three headings. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• I made several copy edits, but please check as I'm not sure I was understanding.[1]
  • Looks good. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• " SAS was able to rationalize operations by no longer operating local routes with the DC-9 and instead increased the number of flights" - what does "rationalize" mean here? Increased the number of flights with a smaller airplane? Isn't this a reasonable solution?
  • My intention was to state that they, among other issues, reduced costs, so I made that explicit. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• "as there are two hills which hinder aircraft landing from the east to follow the perscribed slope." could you clarify - prevent large aircraft from following a safe final approach?
  • That would be a better way to state it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• "has a severe impact on Boeing 737 aircraft, which are used by both Norwegian and SAS" - why sudden switch to present tense? Why suddenly Boeing 737s? - I don't understand this whole paragraph.
  • I have moved this information to the future section. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why so much detail early on e.g. between 1945 and 1990, but from then on there seems to be less detail?
  • I believe all new destinations and airlines are included. There was a lot of new airports in Finnmark during the 1970s. I believe there were no changes of either new destinations or aircraft throughout the 1980s. By the late 1990s SAS was stilling using the DC-9, introduced in 1969. There are four paragraphs on the past 22 years and four on the 27 years from 1963 to 1990, so my impression it is rather evened out. Of course around construction there will always be more to write about. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Future

• "estimated negative economic" - sounds like a bad situation that they would build an airport that would impact negatively on the economy. Is it likely the population will expand much in eastern Finnmark? The article says "Change (10 years) 0.07 %".
  • I'm an economist, so if I'm not writing in a lay enough fashion you must arrest me. The point is that the benefit for society (measured in money) of a longer runway would be lower than the cost of the construction. I've rephrased to make it more understandable. Finnmark is among the areas of Norway that is shrinking the fastest, although the Kirkenes area is one of the few places with the lowest reduction in Finnmark. But that is all irrespective of the runway, which has more to do with the price of a ticket to Oslo. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Will put on hold and await your comments.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the comments. All has been seen to. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   pass!

• Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)