Wikipedia:Peer review/Chicago Midway International Airport/archive1
Chicago Midway International Airport[edit]
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article, needs a peer review if it is going to become a FA. It is currently GA, but I think that improvment is still needed. All comments are welcome!! -Marcusmax (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 13:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from HG (talk · contribs) Hope these thoughts are useful.
- The lead is too long. I think some of the locational information can be moved below and key points put up higher. Looks to me like too many links, hard to read that way. Many some of the numerical details can be moved into relevant sections.
- Good photos, add dates. Are they regular size?
- Ok, I've never looked at an airport article before, but it's a bit dense with information that strikes me, no offense, as sometimes trivial. Like all the runway numbers or the list of Southwest's cities.
- Should previous airlines be under the airline section?
- The table of incidents is a good start. Maybe give full sentences in the summaries. Maybe combine "Aircraft (Registration)" as one column.
- Maybe revise history headings or add date ranges
Well, good luck, you all are on the right track.
- Hope I corrected much of which you listed, some things are standard aviation however. -Marcusmax (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the WP:LEAD could be split. I think most FACS have a level of detail where at least a three paragraph lead is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)