Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Future of Air Transport white paper/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

The Future of Air Transport white paper
previous FAC #1

previous FAC #2

Self-Nom Third time around. The article has just been promoted to GA. A request for copyedit was made in February, no takers as yet. Previous FACs have identified issues with titling/scope, as did the GAN. I'm not sure that reviewers will find this issue fully resolved even now, with the article on it's third different title, but it's the article I wanted to write. FactotEm (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm totally confused by this article. Is it about the white paper or is it about the industry as a whole? I presume the former, but it's entirely unclear. Half of the article seems to be just about the industry generally, and that content should be moved to Air transport in the United Kingdom and done in summary style only in the nominated article. Even when the article is talking about what the white paper says, it seems that there the content is misplaced, and the white paper should be used as a source for a different article. Why, for instance, is there a huge section about the economic impact of air transport in the UK that uses this as the primary (but not exclusive) source? Really what this article seems to be is an unbalanced assessment of the aviation industry, relying far too heavily on one source.  I think this article needs to be rewritten with a new goal in mind: summarize the background that lead to the writing of the white paper, what the white paper says (in summary form, just as in any article about a non-fiction work), and the reaction to the white paper, etc. Detailed factual accounts found in the white paper about a different topic should go in the article for that different topic. Mangostar (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I suspect the title is once again setting an expectation that jars with the content. To answer your questions, the article is intended to be about the key issues concerning the air transport industry in the UK at the start of the 21st century, a title I rejected early on as way too cumbersome. In order to be comprehensive I felt it needed to cover aspects of usage, policy, and environmental impact. Govt policy relating to air transport contradicts environmental policy. The govt's justification for this is its perception of a significant economic benefit generated by growth in air transport, hence the lengthy section on economics. But then, if I have to explain this, there is obviously something wrong. I have always struggled with the title; if anyone can suggest an alternative that adequately encapsulates the content, I'm all ears. Or are the issues more fundamental than that? --FactotEm (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about Aviation industry outlook in the United Kingdom? Mangostar (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would have to be "Air transport" rather than "Aviation" because the latter includes private flying which is not in this article's scope, but would that address your concerns about this article? --FactotEm (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the distinction, but either is fine to me. However, that would not resolve my concerns because even then the article is a mish-mash of topics that don't fit under the new heading either. For instance, the economics part (except for the brief forecast, perhaps) properly would be in the Air transport in the United Kingdom, not in Air transport industry outlook in the United Kingdom, because it is describing past/present effects. Likewise, the "Framework" section should be a summary-style section briefly describing content that is in the Air transport in the United Kingdom article. I still fail to see why this article collects the topics it does to be all in one page. Actually, why could this not just be merged to the main airt transport article? Mangostar (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So I gave a go at a preliminary merge at User:Mangostar/Air transport in the United Kingdom. I think this is a much more sensible approach to a structure of the article. I didn't put in the airport placement strategy because I wasn't exactly sure where to put it, but I really think that the The Future of Air Transport white paper as it stands really is trying to do too much and too little simultaneously. If you want to do a comprehensive overview of the impacts of the industry, that should go in the main article, with summary-style sections if necessary. If you want to do a comprehensive overview of government policy, same. If you want to talk about the specific proposals in this one document, also fine, but then move everything else to a different article. (It seems that maybe you have just picked several topics that interest you and have put them in a separate article so as to avoid having to write troublesome sections on the perhaps boring history of the industry? Just speculating...) I think this needs a major rethinking before it is ready for FA. Mangostar (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A little unfair. I picked one topic that interested me; the inherent conflict between growth in air transport and its environmental impact, a much debated subject in the UK. In covering this subject I sought to be as comprehensive as possible about the causes of the conflict and the arguments presented in the opposing viewpoints, and this has informed the selection of topics in the article. I can see why you suggest splitting this article's topics into separate articles, but I do not agree that by consolidating them into one article it becomes a mish-mash of topics. They are all very relevant to the subject, even if I have failed to title that subject well. It can be difficult to get good FA reviews of long involved articles and I do appreciate you taking the time to help. However, I don't think that I can do anything that would change your opinion without fundamentally altering an article that I would find valuable as a reference as is, so I'm going to have to accept your oppose. Thanks again. --FactotEm (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment all links worked fine for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless, Image:UK Airline Top 10 2006.jpg needs sources to prove its verifiability and (of lesser importance) could use to be SVG or PNG. Actually, this applies to a lot of the graphs--they need to be sourced just like the text is.  Shouldn't be too hard to remedy. gren グレン 18:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources are actually included in the images themelves, but I see your point - I'll add the info to the image pages as well. If you know of any resource that converts these to SVG I'd be grateful. I can't do it myself and I have seen the improvement in quality in an image used elsewhere. --FactotEm (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Source information added to the image pages now. --FactotEm (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Mangostar. The GA reviewer also mentioned issues with focus, but said the issues are OK in a GA, but I think the issues are not OK in a FA. --Kaypoh (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose per Mangostar. The content in this article should be merged into Air transport in the United Kingdom, where it is more applicable.  There could be daughter articles for the white paper (if it actually discussed the white paper in more detail and not the industry as a whole) or for Environmental impact of air transport in the United Kingdom.  Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.