Wikipedia:Peer review/General aviation in the United Kingdom/archive2
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was recently reviewed, and all issues raised there addressed. Since then, the article has been expanded with additional information to make it as comprehensive as possible, and I have gone through the prose in detail. I'm considering putting it up for FAC now, and would appreciate any comments that would help towards a successful candidature. Note: the previous PR was archived only 5 days ago, but the same reviewer has kindly agreed to have another look now. Any other input is also welcome.
Thanks, FactotEm (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: This is a quality article. I reviewed it before, in an earlier incarnation, and commented then that it was, in general, clearly and authoritatively written. It has received further attention since that review, and in my mind has been brought to, or very close to, FA standard. As always, nit-picking can reveal flaws or possible flaws in the best of articles, so don't be put off if my latest list looks rather long. Some are indeed nit-picking points, others express my personal preferences and may be safely ignored. A very few are ponts where significant action should be considered.
It can be assumed that if I don’t comment on a section, I have no problem with it.
- Lead
- Personally I don’t like the quotes around "traditional" (they occur on several later occasions, too). They remind me of the people who make quote marks with their fingers. I’d get rid of them
- Removed.
- Last sentence of para 2 would read better starting: "The GA industry, which is around 7%...."
- Agreed
- Final lead sentence: clarify what "their" is referring to
- Done
- Same sentence: "as a means of addressing" could be shortened to "to address"
- Agreed
- Personally I don’t like the quotes around "traditional" (they occur on several later occasions, too). They remind me of the people who make quote marks with their fingers. I’d get rid of them
- History section
- As there can only have been one "first licence", it would be more accurate to say: "started issuing pilot licences"
- I prefer to keep the existing wording. It definitively refers to the first licenses to be issued, as opposed to the possibility that it was one of many organisations issuing licenses. The cincher for me is that the CAA "started issuing pilot licenses" in 1972, and the same wording cannot surely be applicable for two such widely differing firsts.
- A citation is needed for the statement that the de Havilland Moth revolutionised light aviation, and another for the "vital necessity" quote.
- Done
- Actually, the cite that ends the para covers all information since the previous cite, including the two items you challenge here. Do I need to cite each individual one? They will simply end up with the same reference for each.
- Well, I've been advised to do this, especially with quotes, but you don't have to follow my somewhat craven example. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the cite that ends the para covers all information since the previous cite, including the two items you challenge here. Do I need to cite each individual one? They will simply end up with the same reference for each.
- Done
- As there can only have been one "first licence", it would be more accurate to say: "started issuing pilot licences"
- Activities
- All the edit links for the subsections have become displaced, at least as my screen has it. They are bunched together in the Sports subsection. I assume this doesn't show on your screen, but it seems that your images placements are causing troubles on some displays, e.g. mine. (The same problem occurs again later - see below)
- It does not. Maybe a trip to the HelpDesk on this one.
- You're using Firefox aren't you? I've just fired up my copy and see the same now. --FactotEm (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed now, courtesy of the HelpDesk and a pointer to WP:BUNCH
- It does not. Maybe a trip to the HelpDesk on this one.
- All the edit links for the subsections have become displaced, at least as my screen has it. They are bunched together in the Sports subsection. I assume this doesn't show on your screen, but it seems that your images placements are causing troubles on some displays, e.g. mine. (The same problem occurs again later - see below)
- Private flying
- "factory-produced" should have a hyphen
- Done
- The text claims that air displays are the "second most popular spectator sport in the UK". This is far too loose a paraphrase of what the source says. The source does not mention air displays as a sport, but claims they are "second only to football matches in terms of the audiences they attract". This is pretty vague, but the text ought to reflect what is said.
- Agreed. Amended to accurately reflect the source (good catch!).
- "factory-produced" should have a hyphen
- Sports
- In an article about GA in the UK, why are kilometres given precedence over miles, when giving race distances, speeds etc?
- Not entirely sure now. All changed back to imperial first.
- I've just applied the convert template, which gives you the approved FA format. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure now. All changed back to imperial first.
- In an article about GA in the UK, why are kilometres given precedence over miles, when giving race distances, speeds etc?
- GASAR aerodrome classification
- Suggestion: second sentence might be slightly more elegantly worded: "The six types of aerodrome are classified, in size order, as: etc etc"
- Yes, it might, and now is.
- Last sentence: the phrase "too small to feature" has just been used, so I would say: "They do not feature…". The end of this sentence is a bit untidy, and might be more neatly put: "…and are owned by private clubs or, more commonly, individuals".
- Agreed
- Suggestion: second sentence might be slightly more elegantly worded: "The six types of aerodrome are classified, in size order, as: etc etc"
- Aerodrome licensing
- Can you briefly explain in this section what restrictions on activity follow from not being licensed – it may have been mentioned elsewhere, but I think it belongs here.
- This information is given in the first sentence, although it is expressed in terms of why aerodromes have to be licensed, rather than what restrictions they face if they are not. Is any more needed? The danger here is straying too far off topic in a section that really only needs to say large GA aerodromes are licensed and small ones are not, but recognises the need to expand a little bit on what aerodrome licensing is.
- I don't want you to expand the article unnecessarily, but a brief mention of limitations on activities on unlicensed aerodromes would be useful, and I believe relevant
- I'm really struggling with this one. The key restrictions are that public transport flights and flight training cannot be conducted at unlicensed aerodromes, which is stated in the first sentence. I really cannot see what more I can add without going into excessive detail on a topic that is probably a separate article. I have, however, extended the section with details of a review of aerodrome regulation, which also focusses on these two issues. Does this go any way towards addressing this comment? --FactotEm (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want you to expand the article unnecessarily, but a brief mention of limitations on activities on unlicensed aerodromes would be useful, and I believe relevant
- This information is given in the first sentence, although it is expressed in terms of why aerodromes have to be licensed, rather than what restrictions they face if they are not. Is any more needed? The danger here is straying too far off topic in a section that really only needs to say large GA aerodromes are licensed and small ones are not, but recognises the need to expand a little bit on what aerodrome licensing is.
- Can you briefly explain in this section what restrictions on activity follow from not being licensed – it may have been mentioned elsewhere, but I think it belongs here.
- Scale
- A somewhat uninformative title, don’t you think? Couldn’t it be "Scale of sector" or even "Scale of GA sector"?
- Really not sure about this one. I'll think on it.
- The avalanche of numbers in the second paragraph left me a bit dazed – are they all necessary? The last sentence says there are 36,000 aviation-related associations – that’s not much more than one pilot per association. What is the nature of all these associations? 36,000 seems an awful lot – one for every 1,500 people in the UK.
- I've removed two figures, one that is not really relevant at this stage and one that is implied from another.
- I think you have misread. The membership of aviation related organisations is 36,000, not the number of them.
- You're dead right, I did Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- A somewhat uninformative title, don’t you think? Couldn’t it be "Scale of sector" or even "Scale of GA sector"?
- Use of single quotes ('landing sites') is inconsistent. And you don’t need quotes and italics ('Strips')
- Removed single quotes, and the 'Strips' is a flight guide (i.e. book) title so I think it has to be italicised and quoted exactly.
- Was the actual book title in italics? Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italic type requires book titles to be in italics. Now whether a flight guide actually qualifies as a book might be debatable, but they are published paper-based material so I've interpreted them to meet this requirement. --FactotEm (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Was the actual book title in italics? Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Removed single quotes, and the 'Strips' is a flight guide (i.e. book) title so I think it has to be italicised and quoted exactly.
- Use of single quotes ('landing sites') is inconsistent. And you don’t need quotes and italics ('Strips')
- Trends
- "Data" is a plural term. Therefore, "…for which data are available…"
- Done
- Comma after 2001
- Done
- "…total number of hours flown…" This presumably, is a per annum figure – this should be clarified.
- Well spotted and done.
- Are there conclusions to be drawn from the trends you have identified? The section seems to stop a bit abruptly.
- Need to think more on this one.
- "Data" is a plural term. Therefore, "…for which data are available…"
- Regulation
- More trouble with the subsection edit links for this section, which on my screen are bunched together untidily around "Pilot licensing"
- Airworthiness
- "to safely and legally fly" is a double-split infinitive! Try "..to fly legally and safely"
- Boldly done
- The second sentence is interminable, incorporating both a colon and a semicolon. It should be split, probably into three. Also, "and" should not follow a semicolon
- Done. An ambitious yet ultimately clumsy attempt to link what is now the first sentence with the details of the UK specific licenses that followed.
- "to safely and legally fly" is a double-split infinitive! Try "..to fly legally and safely"
- Safety
- I remember problems with this table during the last review, so slap my wrist if what I say now has already been explained. But how did zero fatal gliding accidents produce 38 fatalities? Similar query re gyroplanes and microlights. I’m sure there’s a logical reason, but it leaves the table looking decidedly incomplete.
- Nope. You had a different observation last time which improved this table considerably. Now, the empty fields mean "No data in the source", not zero. You're probably one of the first few to see this table, and already it has you confused. Maybe I should explicitly state that there is no data in the source.
- "…it is not exceptional", in the note under the table; presumably, "it" refers to the 2007 figures.
- Reworded
- I remember problems with this table during the last review, so slap my wrist if what I say now has already been explained. But how did zero fatal gliding accidents produce 38 fatalities? Similar query re gyroplanes and microlights. I’m sure there’s a logical reason, but it leaves the table looking decidedly incomplete.
- Issues
- "The UK planning system is not designed to support GA operations that have a national impact". Well, I’d be a bit surprised if it had been designed in that way. I think you mean that the UK planning process is designed to focus on local issues, and is generally unsympathetic to GA expansion, which would be a clearer way of putting it, and would relate better to the section on planning later on.
- You are of course correct. "Unsympathetic..." comes across as possibly POV, so I've re-worded it differently, which I think addresses the original inaccuracy you've identified.
- "The UK planning system is not designed to support GA operations that have a national impact". Well, I’d be a bit surprised if it had been designed in that way. I think you mean that the UK planning process is designed to focus on local issues, and is generally unsympathetic to GA expansion, which would be a clearer way of putting it, and would relate better to the section on planning later on.
- Access to airspace
- "leading to a (not the) perception…"
- Agreed
- I’m not totally sure, but as the verb "serves" (last line) relates to "areas", shouldn’t it be "serve"?
- You're right. Done.
- "leading to a (not the) perception…"
- Criticism
- I think that public opinion is hardening against aviation, rather than towards it
- Agreed, though re-worded slightly differently.
- Perhaps some thought might be given to whether you want the article to end on a negative note. I’m not suggesting a wholesale reconstruction, but it does depress things a bit, ending by emphasising an adverse perception. However, better that than you ending up writing a cheery tailpiece which might give the article an unwanted promotional flavour. So don’t take this comment too seriously.
- I'm not sure that it matters too much that the article ends on this note, and there are probably some who would argue that the last sentence is precisely a cheerful tailpiece that glosses over the issue. I think there's a good balance there. I'll think on it.
- I think that public opinion is hardening against aviation, rather than towards it
I hope that you find these comments helpful. I think that this an important article, and subject to a few alterations and the repairs of a few glitches, will be happy to support at FAC, so please let me know when you nomnate. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- As with the 1st review, it has most definitely been helpful. Thanks for your time and your support. I have addressed nearly all issues raised above, a few I need to think on further, and one I need some technical help on. I will be sure to let you know when it comes to FAC. Thanks again. --FactotEm (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to be of help Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)