Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Melbourne Airport

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.

Melbourne Airport edit

This article is currently a good article and has just narrowly missed a featured article promotion. So before we attempt another FA nomination, I am seeking some suggestions and comments on the article and a hopeful promotion to A class. Mvjs (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to featured article discussion. --Born2flie (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support & Comment - I had a supported this articles FAC candidacy from the start. However cr.1 continued to be a pressing issue depite the fact many copyedits are done. If you compare this to any other FA or GA airport article, it is evident this one is by far the best. This becoming A-class would indeed help it to be promoted to an FA. Lets try to get this one done quick, because it is obvious how slow the A-class process is right now, and now way can we wait a year for this one to be promoted. -Marcusmax (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed. A quick review of the article since I posted the FA-Class review link:
1. The introduction seems very disconnected; it discusses the nature of the airport before it ever establishes the facts of the airport.
  - mentions being a major hub, but mentions the airlines that use it as such and the traffic that supports the claim in the next paragraph
  - all the vital statistics of the airport (distance from nearest city, number of runways, etc.) is listed in the last paragraph of the lead
  - overuse of superlative terms remains even though it was brought up in the FA-Class review. (e.g. busiest)
  - I found no reference for Toll Priority utilizing the airport as a base or hub. I reviewed both the airport website and Toll Priority's website
  - does not provide brief overview of the history
2. Single sentence/line paragraphs located in several places in the article
This is just a quick rundown without looking too deeply into the article. --Born2flie (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.