Talk:Nashville International Airport/GA2
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 20:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Good morning and welcome on board Review Airlines Flight 2 to Goodarticleistan. Your reviewer today is Arsenikk (talk)
The prose is in need of a copyedit, with some parts reading a bit awkward. Some repetitive errors includes not spelling out abbreviations, capitalizing common nouns, under-linking and lack of hyphens. Some of the issues have been fixed, others are commented below.
- Long tons should be converted to [metric] tonnes, not kg. (Fixed - nf)
- Although the US is mentioned somewhat down, it would be better to have it in the first or second sentence, for context.
- -Why's this? It mentions its location is in Nashville, Tennessee in the lead. Further specification seems unnecessary.
- It would be nice if the lead also summarized traffic at the airport, such as "serves X destinations" or "a focus city for Southwest" and similar, relevant information. No need to go very much into depth, though. (Fixed - nf)
- Last years passenger numbers should be added to the infobox.(Fixed - nf)
- The infobox states MNAA and then the de-abbreviated form lower down. Both should be spelled out.(Fixed - nf)
- Coordinates should not be placed into the prose. If you are desperate, they can be added in a footnote, but I would instead suggest creating a stub article for the three mentioned airports.(Fixed - nf)
- -Thank you! There was an instance of someone going through throwing in unsourced coords a while back that weren't removed. Doing it now.
- "Citizens Committee" is not a proper noun and thus not capitalized. (fixed)
- "340 acres" should be in singular ("340-acre"). This is accomplished by adding
|adj=onto {{convert}}.(Fixed - nf) - The term "utilize" is a buzzword and should be avoided unless no other words are feasible. (fixed)
- The article is under-linked. Specific airlines and major components of the airport (control tower etc) should be linked on first occurrence.(Fixed - nf)
- "City Aviation Department, the MNAA's predecessor"... What is MNAA? (Fixed - nf)
- The sentence "For the first time more than half a million people utilized the Nashville airport, when the six airlines serving Nashville at the time carried 532,790 passengers that year." reads awkward. Drop "utilized", try to shorten the sentence and avoid mentioning two numbers. Historic passenger numbers for selected years is excellent content. (Fixed - nf)
- The source does not say the first airport with a library, but the first municipal airport, presumably in the US. Also, a self-reference cannot be used for such a claim (although it can be trusted for the year of the branch opening).
- -Why can an official site for the airport not be trusted for the claim? It is, technically, a government publication. Fixed the part about the municipal airport.
- As I tried to explain, self-published sources may be reliable for some types of information, e.g. the year of opening a branch, but not for more extraordinary claims. How has the library in question verified that this is the case? Had a historian made the same claim, after investigating the question in matter, then it would have much more weight. Put another way: even though Nashville Public Library believes they have the first airport library, how can they know they are? Arsenikk (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Master plan" is not a proper noun, so don't capitalize it.(Fixed - nf)
- Do not use boldface to indicate abbreviations.
- -Where's this at? I don't see it in the body anywhere.
- Replace "currently" with "as of [year]". Suddenly there goes five years and whatever is current is no more (this has happened many times, even with GAs).(Fixed - nf)
- I hate to say this, but Puerto Rico is in the US. (Fixed - nf)
- -Doh. I don't know how I missed that whole, horribly written segment.
- "Besides operating service to many U.S. cities"... "In addition, nonstop service was operated to Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego". This is rather confusing, as it first states many cities and then lists additional services. Please reformulate. How many cities were there that AA flew to? (Fixed - nf)
- Why is there suddenly a discussion of the current destinations in the middle of the history section?(Fixed - nf)
- When did Nashville cease to be regarded as an AA hub?(Fixed - nf)
- American Eagle and Concourse D is not mentioned until they terminate. Context should be provided regarding their opening. (Fixed - nf)
- It is "second-largest", not "second largest". I have fixed this and many similar issues throughout the article, so please be aware of this in the future. (Fixed - nf)
- Today... should be moved to the "airlines and destinations" section. (Fixed - nf)
- Do not abbreviate FAA, MTA and BRAC on first occurrence. (Fixed - nf)
- Historical passenger figures are valuable, but as a table they are only interesting if they span the airport's entire history, at for instance five-year intervals. The development from year to year of pax figures is not particularly interesting in an encyclopedic context, but the long-term trends (over decades) is highly interesting. (Fixed - nf)
- The facilities section needs a description of the runways, taxiways and ILS. (Fixed - nf)
- Under this section, creating very short subsections is messy and does not aid the reader. As a rule of thumb, if you cannot write at least two long paragraphs on a topic, do not create a subsection for it. (Fixed - nf)
- EAS?
- -It's clarified above in the first mention: Essential Air Service
- Airlines and destinations needs an introduction, although it doesn't need to be much. For instance, number of airlines, number of destinations, and any airlines operating with a base at Nashville.(Fixed - nf)
- Do not use US Postal state codes. They are completely undecipherable for people from outside the US (and even a lot of Americans do not understand them). Spell out the state, or just leave it blank, as these are major cities.
- -Normally I'd agree, but this is the standard per the WikiProject Airport format.
- As stated, these codes are not understandable for people from outside the US and are a major hassle even for people within. I can of course fail the GA review for violating criteria 1A (prose must be clear and concise, which is not the case here). Anyhow, I cannot find any references to this style on the Airport Project page. Arsenikk (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- The military facilities needs references. (Fixed - nf)
A large share of the references are from the airport itself. While this can be okay for some aspects, additional sources can be useful, especially because they can expand the information. Are there any newspaper archives which can be used to source the airport's history? Some of the news might even be relevant enough (especially the AA hub issues) that it is covered in national news sources.
Placing article on hold. Arsenikk (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! Most of these suggestions had completely gone under my radar. When you look at something enough, it's very easy to miss the most obvious faults, hence why these reviews are great for improving articles. As for the history, unfortunately, there is a complete dearth of it out there for BNA except from official sources and one newspaper article on the 75th anniversary from over the summer. I have tried looking up books and external articles to no avail. And, unfortunately, the Tennesseean (Nashville's paper), is completely terrible when it comes to making archives searchable, or even keeping articles online for any time period. I made a few comments above, and placed fixed in parenthesis at the end of ones I corrected. Thanks again! nf utvol (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- The purpose of a GA review is to improve the article, and as such it has been successful. A most interesting article. It is a shame that not more sources are available, especially about the history, but if they are not available, then one must take what is available. Arsenikk (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Some additional comments:
- I created no:Nashville internasjonale lufthavn
- The lead mentions the Sustainable Master Plan program. This is not mentioned in the body and it is in my opinion not important enough to include in the lead.
- I've done some copyediting, including moving around a bit of the lead as it looked odd with two very short and one long paragraph.
- The lead says 35th-largest, but body says 34th largest.
- I converted the information about the runways to a table.
- I counted and the airport does not serve 90 destinations, but closer to 40.
- Refd 1, 11 and 34 need an accessdates; ref 11 needs a publisher and/or author.
Much better; still on hold. Arsenikk (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Great comments yet again, thanks Arsenikk. I agree that Sustainable Master Plan could be removed. I don't believe it has its own wiki article, so it reads like marketing material if it's retained. I'll remove it. Good catch with the 34th largest. I think that it only recently jumped to 34th place, just didn't get fixed in the lead. Sloppiness on my part most likely... As for the destinations, that number comes from BNA. I believe they are drawing it from "direct route" timetables where flights make a stop at an intermediate airport, usually a hub, but continue on with the same flight number to a final destination. It should be clarified that these flights are such and not necessarily non-stop flights. How I initially read it was that it was defining markets differently than airports, as in, an airport could serve multiple markets (for instance, Philadelphia International serving Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton and Southern New Jersey; or Baltimore-Washington serving both the Baltimore market and the Washington market). Those are both entirely speculative though, and unless someone has a better idea, that tidbit should probably be removed or modified to show non-stop flights.