Talk:Color Air/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Airplaneman   ✈  20:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

An enjoyable read. Placing on hold for the two issues (regarding logo and claim to be first low cost Norwegian airline) to be addressed. Airplaneman  ✈  20:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I'll do a huge copy edit to tweak some of the wording, since a first read through is fine. I believe I can do them because they are extremely minor stylistic/grammatical issues.
 * Tweak of infobox & lead (please fact-check the infobox-I got the info from the prose)
 * Fixes to "service" section
 * Finish copyedit
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Checklinks clean. After reading, I could only find a claim to Color being the first low-cost airline once; the first sentence in the lead. I might have overlooked it, but it should be mentioned in the "Establishment" section as well, with a ref. Otherwise, suitably referenced.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Great
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * OK
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * OK
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I like the images :). The only problem is that File:Color Air Logo.png does not contain non-free use rationale, which can be found at WP:FUG.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Additional comments:
 * Additional comments:


 * Thank you for the review, and not least the extra effort of copyediting; some times articles just don't end up all that well written. The logo has been rationalized [sic]. Imagine—we could get away with those types of fair use rationales a few years ago. I've also found an existing source which claims the article to be the first low-cost carrier, so I added a sentence there. Arsenikk (talk)  09:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright; looks good, will pass! Airplaneman  ✈  21:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)