Talk:Proposed Outlying Landing Field

POV
While opposition is indeed notable, the article seems to be mostly about the opposition, as opposed to the planning process and/or the reasoning behind the requirement for the field. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. Ok - let's see.. The article does have a 'motivation' section and a 'opposition' section - which should make it balanced enough. Also, the notion of an "Outlying Landing Field" is described in a separate article (to describe what an OLF actually is) - this article really describes the ins and outs about the proposal for an OLF being located in Southern Va/North Eastern NC - although it is indeed severly missing the *reason* why the NAVY wants one in the area. Although noted a quirk - The indication of the cancellation for "Site C" is probably misplaced (it shouldn't be in the opposition section - it is just mere facts (and if it is not - should be reshaped as such as it was my intention when I put it in there). Ivan Scott Warren (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)