Talk:Norway Airlines/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 04:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Norway Airlines and I TBrandley will be your pilot today, we will be departing in the next few days to the Kelowna International Airport. In the meantime, happy flighting! TBrandley 04:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Tananger, later Fornebu, Norway" could you in brackets put exact years then please?
  • None of the sources say when the company moved its head office. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Per WP:TENSE, "was" should be "is" in opening sentence
  • WP:TENSE refers to fiction. The company does not exist any more and thus should be described in past tense. Had the company still been in operation, it would have been "is". Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Unlink "Norwegian" per WP:OVERLINK
  • There is a difference between an issue having a very close connection to the scope of an article, and a passing mention in prose. For a person who reads an article about a airline from Norway it is actually likely that some readers would want to navigate to either 'Norway' or 'airline'. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Same goes for "airline"
  • See above. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• "never having" would change the order to "having never"
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Mediterranean" area?
  • Sure. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• "2 April 1987 and was originally intended" would suggest changing to "2 April 1987, having been originally intended" for prose
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Why are some cities linked, but others aren't (like London). Should all be linked per WP:MOS, I assume you mean "London, England", but in case you are referring to "London, Ontario" or something, a link is preferred
  • Linked (not sure why it wasn't to begin with). Don't think it is necessary to specify that London is in England as it is a world city, unlike the large town in Ontario. Had it been in an article about a Canadian airline it would have been quite a different matter. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• MOS:IMAGELOCATION suggests placing images at the right side at start of section, not left. It also says that the should be moved to right or further down in left side, please fix.
  • I've moved them slightly around, but the planes need to point towards the center of the page—otherwise it will look unaesthetic. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• "initial share capital of NOK 10 million" spell out fully and link once again after first lede mention per WP:MOS
  • This is linked in the lead and unless you can be more specific about where you are quoting the MOS there is nothing mentioning that this is to be done twice. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Same goes for other things and locations, such as "Stavanger Airport, Sola"
  • There is no requirement to relink information in first occurrence after the lead, and for instances close to the lead (such as the first paragraph) this is meaningless. Re-linking of instances several screens down can be done of course. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Braathens SAFE" remove "SAFE", not needed or in article title
  • That was the name of the company until 1997 and it should be referred to as such until then. The article's title is irrelevant in this context. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Only one aircraft" remove "only" per WP:NPOV
  • I honestly don't see the big issue, but if you feel it is POV I can always remove it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Copenhagen" is overlinked, as it is in Air Europe section and the Nordic cooperation one
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• One issue, sorry if I'm blind, but I do see lots of sentences not referenced, or just parts?
  • The entire article is referenced in the manner that all information is referenced from a given source up to the ref tag. This is the most common way of referencing on Wikipedia. If you are wondering for instance about the sentence ending in "...and all aircraft were grounded on 15 October 1992. ..." this is referenced at the next available source (51). The alternative would be to add a tag for every single sentence, which would hamper reading of the article significantly. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• "By December also Dan-Air had established itself on the Oslo–London route" I don't see it explained further above, or even noted, what it is? And it seems to be mentioned as we already know it based on above, but no
  • I've added that it was a British airline. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• "List of Norway Airlines destinations" and "List of Norway Airlines aircraft": remove "List of" as it is repetitive of section name and such
  • Sure. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• "operated the following aircraft" shouldn't it be plural as it is more than one, and "List of Norway Airlines aircraft" is only the same thing
  • I don't understand what you are getting at. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Any external links?
  • Nope. They didn't have web sites back then. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Great work overall. Once the above issues are addressed, I will pass the article based on the good article criteria. Well done and thank you for flying with Norway Airlines today, I hope you enjoyed the flight! TBrandley 05:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I haven't been to Kelowna since 1998, so its nice to be back :p Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem! I live only an hour away from Kelowna, so I go there often (in fact, I used to live there). It's quite a small airport, Kelowna's. The article meets the criteria, and thus, I will pass it. Well done! TBrandley 17:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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):

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:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.