Talk:Iloilo International Airport/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The last paragraph under "name", concerning the "informal survey" by The News Today strikes me as very unscientific, since they in a non-methodological way have asked only nineteen people their opinion. Why is this survey notable enough to include in the article? Unless it was a proven basis for the naming decision, I would rather see it removed from the article, since the survey itself is not a reliable source.
 * The News Today issued the informal survey in response to the naming controversy surrounding the airport project as documented in local and national media. While some of the names are comical, the others, particularly the ones cited in the article, are the names that have earned some consensus among certain sectors of Iloilo society.  While I can concede that it isn't scientific, if it deserves to be removed, then I can remove it. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What I react to is that a particular survey—with only 19 respondents—is quoted with full results. Had there been 500 respondents, the results could be called scientific, and it would be worth including. If you don't want to remove the paragraph, you could ambiguate the claim to that surveys showed some support for the chosen name, and some non-support for it. The summarizing of this survey into quantitative results borders original research. Arsenikk (talk)  11:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done and made more ambiguous. I did leave though the figure on the number of total respondents. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great :) Arsenikk (talk)  09:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold until the one concern is dealt with. Otherwise an excellent article. Arsenikk (talk)  15:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is now passed as good. Congratulations! Arsenikk (talk)  09:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold until the one concern is dealt with. Otherwise an excellent article. <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  15:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is now passed as good. Congratulations! <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  09:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is now passed as good. Congratulations! <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  09:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)