This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
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.
Per
WP:TENSE, "was" should be "is" in opening sentence
WP:TENSE refers to fiction. The company does not exist any more and thus should be described in past tense. Had the company still been in operation, it would have been "is". Arsenikk(talk)12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
There is a difference between an issue having a very close connection to the scope of an article, and a passing mention in prose. For a person who reads an article about a airline from Norway it is actually likely that some readers would want to navigate to either 'Norway' or 'airline'. Arsenikk(talk)12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Why are some cities linked, but others aren't (like London). Should all be linked per
WP:MOS, I assume you mean "London, England", but in case you are referring to "London, Ontario" or something, a link is preferred
Linked (not sure why it wasn't to begin with). Don't think it is necessary to specify that London is in England as it is a world city, unlike the large town in Ontario. Had it been in an article about a Canadian airline it would have been quite a different matter. Arsenikk(talk)12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
MOS:IMAGELOCATION suggests placing images at the right side at start of section, not left. It also says that the should be moved to right or further down in left side, please fix.
"initial share capital of NOK 10 million" spell out fully and link once again after first lede mention per
WP:MOS
This is linked in the lead and unless you can be more specific about where you are quoting the MOS there is nothing mentioning that this is to be done twice. Arsenikk(talk)12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Same goes for other things and locations, such as "Stavanger Airport, Sola"
There is no requirement to relink information in first occurrence after the lead, and for instances close to the lead (such as the first paragraph) this is meaningless. Re-linking of instances several screens down can be done of course. Arsenikk(talk)12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
"Braathens SAFE" remove "SAFE", not needed or in article title
That was the name of the company until 1997 and it should be referred to as such until then. The article's title is irrelevant in this context. Arsenikk(talk)12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
One issue, sorry if I'm blind, but I do see lots of sentences not referenced, or just parts?
The entire article is referenced in the manner that all information is referenced from a given source up to the ref tag. This is the most common way of referencing on Wikipedia. If you are wondering for instance about the sentence ending in "...and all aircraft were grounded on 15 October 1992. ..." this is referenced at the next available source (51). The alternative would be to add a tag for every single sentence, which would hamper reading of the article significantly. Arsenikk(talk)12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
"By December also Dan-Air had established itself on the Oslo–London route" I don't see it explained further above, or even noted, what it is? And it seems to be mentioned as we already know it based on above, but no
No problem! I live only an hour away from Kelowna, so I go there often (in fact, I used to live there). It's quite a small airport, Kelowna's. The article meets the criteria, and thus, I will pass it. Well done! TBrandley17:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
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.