Talk:Lympne Airport/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: three found and fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: four found; 1 repaired and three tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've fixed the links, which were caused by typos. The links are only a convenience, as the actual source is the journal that the link goes to a scan of. The references would have been just as valid without the links to the scanned pages. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lympne was also involved in the evolvement of air traffic control... "evolvement"? "evolution" is perhaps what you mean? ✅
 * "evolvement" changed to "evolution". Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * n January 1925, it was notified that red edge lights had been installed along the runways and taxiways at Lympne Clumsy phrasing.
 * In May, it was notified that the night light was again in operation at Lympne. Again "it was notified"?
 * In October, it was notified that the ground signals and again.
 * I see other instances of "it was notified" which is poor grammar.
 * "It was notified" means that a Notice to Airmen was issued, containing the relevant information. Not sure how else to indicate that a message or instruction was issued in this way. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When I was training the NOTAM abbreviation was used. Suggest ", a NOTAM was issued" with "NOTAM (notice to airmen)" in the first instance. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See talk:Penshurst Airfield, the use of the term "NOTAM" did not start until 1948. Prior to that, the full term should be used. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See note further down page to prevent clogging this up :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been covered but Chaosdruid's copyediting. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pleasure flights were given at a cost of 5/- "for a cost of"
 * ✅ amended. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Lysanders or 16 Squadron and 26 Squadron were used on black violet missions, in support of the remaining British troops following the Battle of France. "black violet" needs explanation.
 * It was actually "back violet" (my typo), but I may remove the phrase as I can't seem to find anything to explain it. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On 15 March 1943, 1 Squadron move in, "moved"?
 * This was followed by the arrival 451 Squadron and 453 Squadron on 6 April, equipped with Spitfires. "arrival of"?
 * The above three points are now part of the RAF Lympne article. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Overall the prose is poor, It needs copy-editing and rewriting in a summary style. Currently it is merely a list of events.
 * Copy edit done by Chaosdruid. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better, but there still a number of isolated one and two sentence paragraphs, which need to be consolidated. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References which I can check support the cited statements. References are RS.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Probably a little too detailed. Summary style is what is needed.
 * 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):
 * OK
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article is well researched, but the prose leaves much to be desired. Currently it reads very badly, just a list of sentences strung together. Please enlist the help of someone to copy-edit and convert to good plain English, avoiding endless repetition of phraseology.  You may need to trim some of the detail, which overall appears rather excessive. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mjroots has asked for an extension as the article is to be split. I am happy to go up until 19 March, but will close the review then and detrmine the outcome.  The GAN backlog has been massivley eroded during the drive so re-nomination, if necessary, won't be a problem. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am happy to list this artcile now in light of the improvements made. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mjroots has asked for an extension as the article is to be split. I am happy to go up until 19 March, but will close the review then and detrmine the outcome.  The GAN backlog has been massivley eroded during the drive so re-nomination, if necessary, won't be a problem. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am happy to list this artcile now in light of the improvements made. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)