Wikipedia:Peer review/Iloilo International Airport/archive1

Iloilo International Airport

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm seeking (a long-overdue) peer review of this article as this has been my pet project (à la Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System, both of which are FAs already) for nearly a year now, and I really do hope it is ready for either GA, or even better, FA status. I'm looking for feedback on how to make this article better than it currently is, so I would appreciate all comments and suggestions. Thanks! --Sky Harbor 02:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments:

Certainly needs more pictures before sending it for FA consideration.
~~"fourth-busiest airport in the Philippines" needs a reference~~ Done!
~~The "Name" section lists some name proposals but doesn't make it clear what was the final outcome of this. Is "Iloilo International Airport" the final name?~~ Done!

That's all for now. I'd like to see this reach FA. :) TheCoffee (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to get pictures since I do not physically reside in Iloilo. All the Flickr pics (save for the one in the article now) are licenced as CC-NC, so I will have a difficult time looking for pictures. Maybe you can ask the SkyscraperCity guys if they're willing to give pictures? --Sky Harbor 09:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

"nineteen kilometers " 19 km and use the {{convert}} to add miles as well.
Same for "188-hectare "
"6.2-billion peso" worth putting this into US$ or similar for people unfamiliar with the value of a Phillipine peso.
"The original expected deadline of completion was June 2007,[6] although the expected deadline was moved to the first quarter of 2007" 2 x "expected deadline" in one sentence reads awkwardly.
Don't like the bullet points for the names, if FA is considered then convert this lot into good prose.
" the heated debate " POV.
"Airlines have already transferred their offices to the new airport" this sentence will sound odd in ten years time, perhaps it should read "Airlines had already transferred their offices in anticipation of the opening of the new airport..."?
" [May 8], " don't like the square brackets or the bullets again.
"square meter " convert all of these into square feet/acres where appropriate using the {{convert}} template...
"The access road is wide enough to be able to accommodate four lanes of traffic. The estimated travel time to the airport from Iloilo City proper is around thirty minutes." uncited.
Not keen on the red links in the references, any chance of creating stubs for these articles? If they're not going to be articles ever then unlink them.

Hope that lot helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take on all of those comments:

First point: done
Second point: done
- For both though, I do not know if the units should be linked.
Third point: done. The conversion uses the exchange rate at the time of this review's reply (P41.78=US$1).
Fourth point: fixed
Fifth point: not fixed yet. I'll be sure to lay this out in prose though.
Sixth point: rewritten, although local media outlets tend to hype this stuff, the debate over the airport's name did involve even the President of the Philippines.
Seventh point: rewritten
Eighth point: left unchanged. The format is per the prescribed format of WikiProject Airports. I can't do anything about that.
Ninth point: done with adjustments. The template rounds up figures and some looks awkward with regards to the Philippine usage of English. But overall, they cite the figures in both square meters and square feet
Tenth point: cited
Eleventh point: done except for the Panay News and the Philippine News Agency, which I'll take care of. The SkyscraperCity article used to exist before, but I don't know what happened to it. Maybe it was AFD'd.

Thanks for the review! :D --Sky Harbor 10:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the section on the naming proposals have been converted to prose. --Sky Harbor 02:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Flymeoutofhere (talk · contribs)

This article is really getting there. It looks to be fairly well soured. In the general scheme of things I would make the following points:
I appreciate that the article follows the WP:Airports structure guidelines. I think though, that structure should definetely be above the destinations
I echo the need for more images - it cant get GA until there are more
I think that the article probably needs a copyedit before getting to FAC - especially removing some of the short paragraphs and sections
Im not sure if the section headings such as 'Opening dates' need their own sections - perhaps merge them into history.
In transportation - isnt rail a form of public transport. Either split it completely into diffferent means of transport or have one large section with no sub-sections - its your call
You dont need to wikilink the start dates
Have you got any passenger numbers
Its not clear if there are one or more terimals?

Oh - and take a look at FA airport articles. As a matter of fact the only one is Ben Gurion International Airport. Hope these comments help. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some points:

The airport is virtually new by Philippine standards, so full-year figures and statistics will be unavailable until at least 2009. By the way, there is only one passenger terminal and one cargo terminal.
The structure and airlines/destinations sections have been switched, with the former on top of the latter.
Opening dates as a section is significant since the airport opened during an election year and the issue over when the airport will open has been hyped in Philippine media. If the notability of the issue is not notable, then I will merge it to the main history section.
I'll re-format the transportation section.

Thanks so much for the review! --Sky Harbor 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]