Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Air transport in the United Kingdom/archive1

Air transport in the United Kingdom
Self Nom. I've brought this article as far as I can now. I believe it meets the criteria for FA status and submit it now for consideration --FactotEm 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * May I suggest using short-form refs? I converted one source over here as an example. This will really improve the readability of the reference section.  Pagra shtak  15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to sign off now, but I'll get on this tomorrow. Thank you. --FactotEm 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --FactotEm 09:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * CommentI know the article is already long, but an article like this should really have a History section. Information on when and where air travel in the UK began and an overview of its growth pre-1980s. Information along these lines. Medvedenko 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. I suspected this would come up. I appreciate your taking the time to comment and I do see your point, but I'm going to kick back on this one for a number of reasons.
 * I believe that a history section would have to be disproportionately large, needing, if it is to be comprehensive, to cover pioneering air transport, the age of the sea-plane, airport development, war years, the jet age, liberalisation of the markets, privatisations, concorde, airline development (and those are just off the top of my head). Notwithstanding potential issues with article balance, I have neither the time nor the sources to do justice to such a task.
 * More importantly, I always intended this article to be very specifically about the current status of air transport, an emotive subject that is getting increasing amounts of attention in the UK because of the high levels of usage and a Government policy that appears to be at odds with the current environmental climate. In this respect I guess it's the article title that's at fault, and it might more appropriately be called something like "UK air transport in the environmental age". In this context I don't think that the lack of a history section makes the article any less comprehensive, but then I'm not the one that makes the decision on this one. If the article fails FAC on this basis then so be it. If it's a reason to speedy fail then perhaps Raul could let me know and I'll withdraw the nom. The reason will be on record if someone else wants to take it to FA, but it's not something that I personally see a need for in the context of what I am trying to achieve with this article. --FactotEm 09:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reject & Oppose
 * Regarding the history section: It would not be "disproportionately large" if it is in summary style.
 * Other points to be added on the weekends. Leranedo 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Leranedo is correct. I think you should start a History of air transport in the United Kingdom article, and have a summary-style section here.  Pagra shtak  17:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing. I fully understand the reasoning why a history section is seen as necessary, but it's clear to me at least that I have got the title for this article wrong. The subject matter is intended to be about a specific strategy that has been adopted for air transport in the UK, not about air transport in general. A rather obvious error in hindsight, but that's what these reviews are all about (and next time I'll follow the recommended course and get a peer review first). Rather than waste anyone's time any further on a misnomer, I've asked for this nomination to be withdrawn. Thank you to everyone who commented - much appreciated. --FactotEm 14:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)