The section Today has some occurrences of currently and other words that should simply be removed. I would recommend changing the header to Operations or the like. There are a few instances of overwikilinking, for instance Ansett in the terminal sections. CBD should be deabbreviated. Also change hyphen (-) to en dash (–) where appropriate; the en dash is used for stating betweens such as Sydney–Melbourne.
The Public transport section lacks any references, as does two paragraphs in the terminal section.
Wongm has done a good job with this (and he added that here but it seemed to have got reverted).
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Both incidents fail the guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Page content. The amount of space used on new services seems quite large, and it is generally my impression from dissuasions that it is felt that these should stay inline in the destinations list. However, I cannot find any guide or policy on this, but I feel that it is overfocus in violation with the GA criteria. I would claim that services already started, and without starting dates announced should not be included, while those with dates simply go in the destination list.
I feel that both incidents definitely meet the notability criteria set out in WP:AVIATION. Both incidents are extremely unusual circumstances, a hijacking in Australia is virtually unheard of and a mystery illness sending dozens of people to hospital at an airport is also unprecedented. The QantasLink hijacking also satisfies It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian target.
I would definitely agree that listing all service increases future, past and present is definitely unnecessary. I definitely believe that sourced, accurate prospective airlines/routes deserve to be there (and that has been discussed before). It's a question of keeping an archive of service increases. What about removing all increased services but keeping services that will increase in the future? Or would it be better to remove the whole service increases section? Mvjs (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the incidents. There are obviously two different definitions on notability out there, and I seem to have picked the wrong one. I was wondering why a hijacking was not notable. But someone either has to fix the Airport/Page content page or mark it as obsolete. Concerning the inclusion of service entries, I would personally opt for a prose section, where important new services are included (thoughout the entire history of the airport). Take a look at the history section of Kristiansand Airport, Kjevik for an idea of how to write this sort of thing. Important services are mentioned, but small changes left out. Large sections of lists read a lot worse than prose. Arsenikk(talk)14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree about the incidents, having those two conflicting lists has caught me up a few times. Anyway, I've converted the long new services section to prose, keeping the more significant services and simplifying some. How does that look? Mvjs (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list of awards seems excessive and causes a bias problem since it becomes and indiscriminate collection of awards; most airports have dozens of dubious awards, and I fail to see how the inclusion of this list helps to better understand the airport. Instead I would recommend that the most prominent be mentione, perhaps in prose rather than in list form.
I've converted the awards section to prose. I've removed a few of the most insignificant awards, leaving what I feel is the more prominent ones.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
All the images have forced size tags. This is not a good idea, since it hinders accessibility and flexibility for users with special needs (either to force images larger or smaller). Please remove the size tags.
Fixed.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am placing the article on hold; fix the commented incidents and it will pass by a farthing. Good work so far and thanks for writing an interesting article on Wikipedia. Arsenikk(talk)10:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! You have just written a good article. All my comments have been seen to. As for further work on the article I am a little unsure where to point you, since it seems to me to be close to FA quality. My general advice is to get someone with good FA knowledge to copyedit, and perhaps add a little history between 1971 to 1994.
b (MoS): 