Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Melbourne Airport/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [1].

Melbourne Airport edit

Nominator(s): Mvjs (talk)


I'm nominating this article because I believe that it has reached featured article quality. Back in July, the article was given good article status and the reviewer felt that the article close to FA quality then. Since then, a peer review has been conducted as well as two copyedits. The article has 117 citations, a good bunch of images and an informative terminal diagram. As there's only one airport featured article, it's hard to gauge against, but I feel it meets, if not exceeds its quality. The two copyedits have ensured the article is well written and comprehensive whilst the 117 citations ensure the article is factually accurate. The article is very much stable and the good article nomination has made the article well and truly neutral. The article has a concise lead, and is appropriately structured to the appropriate WikiProject's guidelines and all citations use the appropriate template. There are several images, all with captions and the appropriate licences. All comments and suggestions will be taken on board. Thanks in advance. Mvjs (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I have helped the nominator with this one and I think it meets FA criteria. Keep in mind the tables, and organization are way ahead of any Airport FA or GA we currently have at WP:AVIATION. -Marcusmax (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Support 1) You two supporters above cannot really support the article as main contributors. From what I've seen, it doesn't really count. Additionally, I support this article as Featured Article as it is very well written, referenced, layed out and really offers so such a broad range of information. Well done. Domiy (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for Image:Melbourne Airport Terminal Map.png Eurokick's version was released under a GNU Free Documentation License from what I understand, hence it would be reused for the new version. -Marcusmax (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the image? Link? Эlcobbola talk 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was deleted twice for being having unfree images, like airport and airlines logos. The deletion log can be found here [2]. -Marcusmax (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the 737-800 image, I've updated the copyright tag. As for the terminal map, this is more complex. User:EuroKick was the original creator of the terminal map but he included the logos of the airlines and the airport - which are obviously non-free and can't be used in the diagram. This was brought up at possibly unfree images and the image was deleted. I contacted EuroKick and requested that he remove the non-free images from the terminal map. He has thus far not responded. So, I went ahead and modified the terminal map to remove the non-free logos. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominators should not be supporting
  • There are a few places where the prose is poor
  • The airport has its own suburb boundaries with the area officially named Melbourne Airport, adjacent to the suburb of Tullamarine and has the postcode 3045. - clunky. How about The airport has its own suburb named Melbourne Airport; it is adjacent to the suburb of Tullamarine and has the postcode 3045.?
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the 1960s, worldwide demand for air travel grew, the nearby Essendon Airport was becoming insufficient to meet the needs as the primary airport for Melbourne. - Should there be an as somewhere?
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With privatisation, following the lead of most major Australian airports, the name was changed to simply Melbourne Airport. - perhaps After privatisation, the name was changed to Melbourne Airport, following the lead of most other major Australian airports
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giggy

  • "after Sydney Airport" - I don't think this needs to be said... the wikilink to the list of busiest airports should be sufficient if anyone's interested.
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A busy, curfew-free airport,..." - we established it was busy last sentence
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First three sentences of paragraph 2 of the lead all start with "The airport"
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*http://www.aussieheritage.com.au/listings/vic/Strathmore/EssendonAirport/15807 (ref 14) doesn't work

That whole website seems to be bung at the moment; none of the article are working. Hopefully that's something they'll fix soon. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It a commercial mirror of the Government heritage databases - have swapped for the official version. Wongm (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check throughout for this stuff. Magazines/newspapers/etc.
Fixed the ones I found. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although in practice there are few passenger aircraft movements between 2 am and 4 am, only freight aircraft." - a reference wouldn't hurt
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recently, there has been..." - see MOS:DATE#Precise_language
    • "Recent works have been undertaken to prepare the airport for the late 2007 arrival" (especially since that's in the past now)
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Prospective users and routes section should have en dashes (in the toolbox under the edit window, that's the first from the left, the slightly shorter one)

Giggy (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canberra, Sydney, and many other cities are linked many times. They really only need to be linked once or twice.
I've attempted to reduce the overlinking. Mvjs (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Melbourne Airport passenger numbers have hit a record high," - recentism (precise language linky above).... I'd just remove this statement.

Giggy (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are numerous WP:DASH issues in the tables (hyphens used on date and number ranges rather than endashes) and many image layout issues that breach WP:ACCESS (order of items in sections and images within section, not above them). A MoS review is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at this. How did I go? Mvjs (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the webmaster of that site has removed all old press releases. I'm not sure what can be done about it. Here's the Google cache if you are interested. [3] Mvjs (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected to proper site, not commercial mirror. Wongm (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Project of the The City of Moonee Valley
The above two sites are published by proprietary companies, Agents Support Systems Pty Ltd and Allesto Media Pty Ltd respecitvely. They aren't some fly by night sites setup on Blogspot. I believe they satisfy the reliable source criteria. Mvjs (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That site is published by the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation [4]. Mvjs (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out little known abbreviations in the references, such as IATA
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the prose is improved significantly. One of the most obvious problems is close repetition. Here are examples:

  • busiest busiest, plus more later in the lead
  • hub hub
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is, it is
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • suburb suburb
Reworded. Mvjs (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • over over over
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • the airport, the airport
  • "Melbourne Airport is the recipient of the IATA Eagle Award[5] and two National Tourism Awards,[6][7] and has been ranked in the top five airports worldwide numerous times.[8][9][10]"—I don't suppose the cluster of three refs can be conflated somehow ...? "is" is odd; unnecessary passive voice.
Fixed. In terms of the citations, it's certainly possible to remove two or all of them, as they are already cited later in the article but then all the citations in the lead would have to be removed, as it's cite all of the lead or none of it. Mvjs (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • four star airport: hyphen missing (see MoS)
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in that same time."—not elegant
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "located in"
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • operate operations operations
  • "additionally"—ungainly.
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please get someone else to work on it too. Tony (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked three people if they can do a copyedit, hopefully at least one does. Mvjs (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and has the postcode 3045"—well, who cares? Why is that boring fact in the lead?
Removed. Mvjs (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "located"; "... centre, and is ..."
Fixed (I think) Mvjs (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and Wongm have given the article a good going over, how is it looking now? Mvjs (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-visit: spot check of "Route developments".

  • "Over fiscal year 2008–09, there has been an influx of capacity increases at the airport resulting in 725,000 new international seats." That fiscal year is only two and a half months old. Are you sure?
Yes, I am sure. "Over the next 9 months Melbourne expects to see one of the biggest increases in international seats it has experienced in the last decade with over 725,000 new international seats direct to and from Melbourne. " [5] That is, the next nine months from the end of August 2008, hence fiscal year 2008-09.
  • "Also" hanging at the end of a clause.
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "South Korea", is it?
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commence" sounds like ballet school. Try "started" or "began".
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "upping" is too informal.
Fixed. Mvjs (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "de-linked" mean here?
Clarified. Mvjs (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Won't this section date very quickly? The readers in 2011 will wonder what all the fuss was about back then. Who will update it? It's like an in-house news bulletin. This extreme topicality is in evidence elsewhere.
  • "under serviced"—one word.
Fixed. (my dictionary indicated otherwise) Mvjs (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flags in the bottom two tables: the state flags of Australia? Hello. They're so similar, and what could these icons possibly add after the explicit name of the airport and city? Then, when you do need to know where the hell, you get this funny striped flag from who knows where (no. 4, left side). Are the flags just to pretty it up? I'd get rid of them.
Is the funny stripy one you are referring to the Flag of Thailand? \ / (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above this, the year-range column should be wide enough to prevent wrapping at normal window sizes. There's huge white space in the other two columsn. % change means from the previous ... calendar year? Vague.
I'm not sure how you set a manual width for a column. Any guidance here? Mvjs (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find no reason to change my "oppose". Tony (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rejoinder: Thanks for fixing these exmples, but they are merely illustrating why the whole text is unsatisfactory. I believe it would be better to withdraw the nomination, work on it seriously for a month (with further collaborators), and to resubmit. Tony (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see this candidacy remain open. It has been the opinion of three editors (not including nominator) that this article satisfies the featured article criteria. It has been the opinion of one editor, yourself, that it does not. I would like to hear the opinions, comments and suggestions of some more editors. Myself and the other handful of editors who have been making a concerted effort to bring up the quality of the article, and hopefully bring it up to your expectations, will continue that effort. Mvjs (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YellowMonkey has done what I think is a brilliant job copyediting the entire article. Now, how is it looking? Mvjs (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 29 May 2003, Qantas Flight 1737 en route to Launceston Airport was hijacked shortly after takeoff. The flight attendants and passengers managed to subdue and restrain the hijacker, and the plane landed safely at Melbourne." - this isn't paritulclary relevant to the airport, and it's not sourced. Is it worth keeping in the article? Giggy (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aircraft hijacking is basically unheard of in Australia, so it's extremely notable. The plane took off and later returned to the airport after the incident - so the airport is definitely involved. The sources are in the linked article and I will now add them to that section. Mvjs (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Mvjs (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the limited time I have spent at Wikipedia, I have been involved with the development of this page. There has been significant improvements in the prose and substance, particularly in the history section. As far as I can tell, most of the criterion for a FA as been met. However, 1a appears to be the major concern currently. It is hard to create prose that is extremely engaging for this page, because most of the articles content has no 'x-factor' - the runways section is hardly going to excite. It's not to say it's impossible, just many sections would require a fundamental rewrite to become slightly more engaging. With that in mind, it is my opinion that many parts of the article have been improved to as feasibly as possible. When you compare the prose to that of another airport of FA quality, such as Ben Gurion International Airport, I believe the two are comparable. \ / (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to excite, but it helps is it's a smooth read. Let's do another spot-check: "Awards and accolades":

  • "Melbourne Airport has been the recipient of numerous awards and accolades." Replace four words with one.
  • "the Melbourne" is not a good abbreviation. "Melbourne" might be OK in the context.
  • The list of awards ... oh, I suppose so. It's a bit puffy, though, and goes on and on and on. "At the 2000 Victorian Tourism Awards, Melbourne Airport was inducted into the Hall of Fame." Yawn. The Victorian hall of fame for something or other ... WOW.
  • Now, can't this section be trimmed and merged with the stub "Accidents and incidents" at the bottom? I don't know what to call it, but why not "Miscellaneous" or "Incidentals"? It certainly needs to be played down. WP is not an in-house advertisement for the shareholders of Melbourne Airport. You might relocate that ad for "Other facilities" into such a more anonymous section, too.
  • The text is long enough to reduce back to a less POV article.

I have to declare Quick-fail. The article has been here for some time, has sucked in reviewer resources, and still requires major work. It would be fairer and more practical to withdraw it and resubmit after two or three weeks, having revamped it in your own time. More collaborators required. Tony (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere I notice glitches.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Melbourne_Airport/archive1&oldid=1138466746"