Talk:Omak Airport/GA1

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

Reviewer: Alanchi1 (talk · contribs) 21:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is a nice piece of work, content is very thorough and adequately meets the good article criteria.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose of this article is clear and concise. Grammar and spelling is all correct as well. Follows similar style and structure as other airport articles.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The sources sufficiently cover material throughout the page. References seem verifiable and accurate.
 * 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:
 * Maintains NPOV stance throughout the article.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Edit History shows evidence of a very stable article.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images and map are appropriate and significantly strengthen article. Images are all tagged appropriately.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Good job!
 * Good job!

So is this going to be reviewed? Got a skim but still needs a look through. Wizardman 15:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by another editor
 * I would question "The prose of this article is clear and concise. Grammar and spelling is all correct as well." Taking the first few sentences from the Improvements section:
 * "After being considered for upgrading in December 1956, the Omak City Council thought that what would become known the Omak Airport's boundary lighting required improvements. The city council and Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) gathered over $16,000 for upgrades; 48.28 percent was funded by the council, while the remaining 52 percent was paid for by the CAA. The ordinance, however, covered approximately $1,000 of Omak City Council's share.[9] By March 1957, these suggestions were set as a high priority, with numerous companies biding to assist with its improvement; the CAA was notified. City council suggested that Wenatchee's Regan Electric, who bid $17,672, would have a positive impact on these upgrades. While it was noted that an improvement contract for its boundary lighting should be made with an organization by 120 work days, the addition of new set of electric cables were also proposed for the airport."
 * "what would become known the Omak Airport's boundary lighting". known as? And the parenthetical "what would become known the Omak Airport's" would be much better placed after "boundary lighting", so: "the Council thought that the boundary lighting of what would become known as Omak Airport required improvements."
 * "The ordinance, however, covered approximately $1,000 of Omak City Council's share." This is very unclear and bears little resemblance to what the newspaper article (ref 9) actually says about the $1000.
 * "Regan Electric ... would have a positive impact on these upgrades." What does this mean?
 * "an improvement contract should be made with an organization by 120 work days" is also very unclear. Is it "within 120 working days" or what? Checking the ref, the 120 days was the duration of the contract, but this needs to be clear.
 * "the addition of new set of electric cables" Should it be "the addition of a new set..."?


 * My impression is that the article needs a good copy edit for grammer and flow. Sorry if this is a bit negative, but good articles need to be written in good English. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have had a go at copyediting the Origin section, and the first paragraph of the Improvements section, but it has needed fairly radical surgery to reflect what the refs actually support. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the above I'm failing this, since it'll need a lot of work to be cleaned up. Wizardman  15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)