Talk:Saint-Inglevert Airfield/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 20:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I will make notes as I go. Can I suggest you add responses to the relevant sections, to make it easier to see what has been done, and what still needs to be done. I will review the lead at the end, once the main body of the article has been checked.

Location

 * Are there any details of its area available?
 * Not exactly sure what you mean here. The airfield's location between the two villages is given, and its location in relation to the nearest major town in given. Coordinates already appear in the infobox, but could be added here if desired. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Area as in acres/ha, to give some idea of whether it is a small field or a huge one.Bob1960evens (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the lede does say that it's a GA airfield, and the runway length is given in the infobox. I've not seen any source that gives the total area of the airfield. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is not available, that is fine.

First World War

 * "flying the Handley Page O/400" sounds like there was only one of them. Suggest "flying Handley Page O/400 aircraft" or somesuch.
 * ✅ Mjroots (talk)
 * Three occurences of "also" in close proximity does not read well. Suggest rewording.
 * ✅ Mjroots (talk)

Between the wars

 * There seem to be a lot of very short sentences, and lots that start with "On [date] ...". Could the style be varied a little, to make it read better?
 * Not sure. The history of the airfield is presented in chronological order. See Penshurst Airfield and Lympne Airport, which are both GAs and follow a similar style. Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not objecting to chronological order. The issue is whether the text reads well. Since you have mentioned it, I note that the Lympne GA review picked up on the same issue, suggesting that a good copyedit was required. Some conjunctions, introductory phrases and linking text would help the flow considerably.
 * ✅ I have copyedited the section myself. The dates should be incidental to the narrative, I think. See what you think. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Several mentions of "it was notified". Is this a formal process connected with airfields? If so, it needs a little explanation on first occurence.
 * The phrase "it was notified" means that an Notice to Airmen had been issued. A formal process of the relevant Civil Aviation Authority (DGAC or CAA as appropriate in this case). The term is already wikilinked earlier in the paragraph. Would a second wikilink be of benifit here? Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think a second wikilink is necessary. It is not clear that "it was notified" implies that a Notice to Airmen was issued. Your text above is what is required. Somethink to link "it was notified" and "notice to airmen" and "Civil Aviation Authority" together, so that readers carry on reading, rather than clicking to find out what it means. Having read the article, the reader should be able to understand what "it was notified" means. For the details of how it works, they can follow the link. (again, same issue was raised for Lympne GAR).
 * Make a third footnote? Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That might work quite well.
 * ✅ Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Was the flight of the Farman F.60 Goliath exceptional in some way? Distance? Payload? Needs explanation.
 * ✅, part of trials to assess whether these aircraft could be used in civil aviation. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "three 4.5 in live shells". Is the "in" inches? If so it needs expanding and converting to metric.
 * It is inches, I'm not sure whether we convert shell sizes or not. Have asked at WT:MILHIST. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Replies there indicate that the conversion is not necessary. Mjroots (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 2 reads like a series of disconnected facts. It needs a few extra words to link the various thoughts together.
 * "At a meeting ... resulted in a number of resolutions" doesn't quite make sense. Needs reworking.
 * ✅ "At a meeting... " changed to "A meeting... ". Read better now. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Charles Fauval's world record. Was it for distance covered or some other achievement?
 * ✅ - it was for distance covered, added to article. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Final para is all "On [date] ..." It needs variety, and maybe an intro: "The airfield was used by several notable people ..." to link the bits together.
 * That para covers events in 1935 and 1936. I though that it was better to combine the two years rather than have two very short paras for each year. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bigger para is good. So then, "Several notable people visited the airfield in 1935 and 1936, including ..." might work. Again, it is the flow of the text, not its structure that needs tweaking.
 * ✅ Introductory sentence add to that para. Mjroots (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Second world war

 * Groupe Aérien d'Observation could do with a rough translation into English. (Observation Corps?)
 * ✅ by (thanks). Mjroots (talk)
 * I have copyedited most of this section for style and flow, based on suggestions above. See what you think.Bob1960evens (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Post war

 * Is the new hanger still planned or has it been built? (Or don't we know?)
 * We don't know. The Google Earth images covering Saint-Inglevert are dated 2002 and there is some cloud cover obscuring the area where the hangars are. Nothing on Flickr either - wish there was a Geograph France! We can assume that it was built, but without evidence to support it saying it definitely was built is WP:OR. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My French is not very good, but I think this may confirm that it has. (I also wonder if this may be better than ref 47, since you can read the whole article.) Bob1960evens (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - article expanded with new info. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Other issues

 * It is a shame there is no image. There are a couple of great ones on the net, but none that I can find with a creative commons licence.
 * I've looked too, without joy. I might be able to sort something in the longer term. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Would you like the French titles in the references translated into English? Mjroots (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that is necessary.

The formal bit

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

All issues have now been fixed. Congratulations. I am awarding the article GA status. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)