Talk:Geilo Airport, Dagali/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * Overall the article looks to be quite reasonable, so it should make GA in due course.
 * However, there is a conflict in the information provided:
 * The WP:lead states: "Of the original 1,800 metres (5,900 ft) runway, ...."
 * The Second paragraph in History states "In 1988, construction of a runway expansion to 1,800 metres (5,900 ft) was started ....."
 * So what was the original length in 1985?
 * Article needs to be updated to give the 1985, 1988 and the current-day lengths; and the descriptions of changes over time corrected.


 * I'm not certain what was intended in respect of Tourist Charter flights for sking: were these only charter flights originating in Norway, if not, where & how were Customs & Immigration controls handled?

Meanwhile, I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with this article was that despite searching through an extensive set of newspaper archives, there is very little information about the technical aspects of the airport. It doesn't help that it has been taken out of the AIP. The sources simply don't state the length in 1985, so I have no answer for that. As for international flights, I presume it was used for that, but again the sources never said anything; with 1000 annual passengers, it couldn't have been that many flights. Immigration is usually handled by the local sheriff's office, with deputies sent to the airport for each international flight. What customs do, I don't really know, but they would be dispatched from somewhere. All the reliable, relevant information I've been able to dig up is in the article, everything else is going to be speculation from my side. I am unhappy that I have failed to find anything about "facilities" or the like, and actually delayed GA nomination for a year because of this. Arsenikk (talk)  16:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK.
 * You have clarified the charter jet aspect: without new information, anything added would be WP:OR, so I probably need to close that Hold. In the UK, construction would need to be authorised by Planning Applications and those in the last few years can be searched on line - I don't know if Norway does it that way.
 * I suggest that the WP:Lead is modified. Something like "Of the original 1,800 metres (5,900 ft) runway built for International charter jets, 850 metres (2,790 ft) can still be used for private aircraft." would remove most of the discord between Lead and History sections.
 * Pyrotec (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now there is an idea I never though of. I found the "regulation plan" map from 1981, which states that the runway is 1300 meters, so I guess that's good enough; sounds like the right length too, long enough for regional craft, too short for jets. And voilà, a new group of sources at my disposal :) Arsenikk (talk)  17:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

A nice article. As the points raised above have been addressed, I'm awarding GA-status. Congratulations on the quality of the article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)