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

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 11:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 12:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be taking this review for the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive; please consider participating in the latter especially. Comments to follow shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, Thanks for taking this up. I will address the comments as they come. Also, a note beforehand. This is my first GA nomination of an airport article, so do let me know if there are specific comments to be handled. Being an article related to an airport, there has been regular changes in destinations served, and the corresponding citations, which might need updation as the nomination was done long back. M² (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magentic Manifestations, my first point is about the large and detailed "Airlines and destinations" section. This project-wide RfC at the Village Pump concluded that such tables should only be included when such information is DUE i.e. when the information has been summarised as a group by reliable sources. I would prefer that such a section was sourced to one reliable source, which listed all the destinations, rather than over 100 news articles. Is that possible? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, Based on what I can find, only secondary sources which lists all destinations (most of them!) are flight tracking sites like Flightradar24 clickable link (evidently discussed on the RfC as well). Let me know if this can be used as a reliable source and used to populate the same. Thanks! M² (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• I have thoroughly copyedited the article, you might want to go back and check my changes
• Article is mostly stable, and has images. Some of these are however out of date, most notably the aerial photo of the airport, which is confusing since it contradicts the descriptions in the article. It should be removed and if possible replaced with a more recent image, or a diagram showing the runway/taxiways/terminals.
• Neutral and broad enough to satisfy GACR 3a and 4.
• However, there is significant duplication. For instance, the "Future plans" section details expansion already completed and discussed above. An incident as impactful as the 1984 bomb blast, which required a terminal to be rebuilt, should also be mentioned in "History". I would suggest making the "Accidents and incidents" section a subsection of "History". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @AirshipJungleman29, Have gone through your ce, no qualms with them. Have addressed the cn tag as well. My revert to the other points:

  • Aerial photo: The photo in the infobox is of the terminal. Are you referring to the one in the runway section? If so, do agree that it is from 2005, and while it shows the runways correctly, it was before the expansion of the runways. There is no other updated image showing the aerial view in commons. Either I can add a comment "in 2005" below or have to remove it altogether.
  • Duplication: I have moved the past to the history and plans to relevant sections to avoid duplication. Only the new airport part remains.
  • Accidents and incidents: I have moved the bomb blast and flooding part to history. Do you think the accident section should go to the top as it is generally at the bottom at airline/airport articles as a separate section? M² (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]