Talk:Newark Liberty International Airport/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mhawk10 (talk · contribs) 20:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look over the next couple of days or so. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhawk10: Hey I hope everything is well, and I was just wondering if you forgot, or you are still reviewing it because it should be ideally finished in about seven days. No rush though I am just wondering. Jibreel23 (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jibreel23: Thank you for the reminder. I'll put my notes here tonight. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jibreel23: Sorry for the delay. Notes are below:

@Mhawk10: I tried to do most of your suggestions. I am still working on the airlines and accidents, but I am pretty sure I did most of the other stuff. Jibreel23 (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jibreel23: Sorry for the brief delay in my response. On another read through, I think the short stubby section on "Airport Information" feels a bit off, as I think that the title of that section could also encompass the information in sections covering the airlines and the statistical information. It might be wise to make "Airport information the big level 1 heading, to open the section with the current airport information section, and to move down the heading level by one for the other two sections so as to align it under "Airport Information". I'm not sure I'm communicating this well, but I have a clear idea in my head for this, so please ask questions/clarifications if this makes little sense.

Also, If you wouldn't mind, could you respond line-by-line in the boxes below when you think you've achieved a task? This makes it easier for both of us to clearly track. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhawk10 I think I achieved this task Jibreel23 (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhawk10 I think I achieved this task Jibreel23 (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry I tried replying to the comments you left in the boxes. I am pretty sure I fixed everything you suggested, and more. Jibreel23 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Spelling, grammar, and prose look generally fine as of now, though I noticed one glaring issue. There is a sentence which states In October 2019, the Port Authority board approved the replacement project with an estimated cost of $2.05 billion. Construction is expected to start in the first quarter of 2022. The testing of the new system expected to start 2025. It is expected to go into service in 2026 and the old monorail will be demolished. The first quarter of 2022 has come and gone, and the source is from 2021. The first quarter has come and gone, but the article still presents the beginning of construction as future tense. Why? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In general, the lead should be a short summary of the body, per MOS:LEAD. Not all of the substantial parts of the body are in the lead; for example, the rail transport associated with the facility is given a dedicated subsection but doesn't seem to be given any space in the lead. And, not all of the lead is incorporated into the body, either; for example the fact that it's United's third largest hub and that 63% of passengers flew United only appears in the lead. Finally, when all of the information of the lead is cited in the body, and the information is not contentious/a direct quote, it's customary (per MOS:LEADCITE) to not have citations in the lead. In short, a well-written lead probably doesn't need citations unless it contains direct quotes or contentious information, since all of the information for that lead should already be provided in the body with accompanying citations. Much of the lead needs to be re-written for this to occur. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references section is compliant with the MoS. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The Airlines and destinations section appears to have quite a few dated citations. I ordinarily would not make a fuss over something being five years old, but given the effect of the pandemic on international air travel, I'm don't think that timetables from 2017 or 2018 are reliable sources for destinations and/or airlines that currently fly out of Newark. And, some of the sources (like that for Austrian Airlines) are archived interfaces that were once used to make database queries but still don't actually directly support the statement. The section needs to be constructed from up-to-date sources if this is going to pass GA. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	As of this moment, the article looks fine as far as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are concerned. The subject of the lists in the article generally have been covered by some source, so it is not Wikipedia coming up with some novel idea here. However, I'd like to see a source that describes the topic of "accidents at Newark Airport" — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig keeps failing. This will take a while to validate manually. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article addresses the topics well. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article does not appear to go into improper detail. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article seems to be free from puffery or other balance issues. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There do not appear to be any edit wars that have recently occurred. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are all tagged as to their copyright statement. A valid fair use rationale is provided for the logo of the airport that is in the infobox. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Additionally, the Annual traffic section's graph is composed from a Wikidata query and includes 2021, while the table below it ends at 2020 and has citations that are dated only as recently as 2017. The data probably should be the same between the table and the graph. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Placed on hold pending improvements and a check of the text for copyright violations. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continue?

@Jibreel23: Howdy, pard. I was asked by Mikehawk to take over this review while he went on wikibreak, so I wanted to notify you and ask if you would like me to take it over. I'm ready to go if you are. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 07:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: That is fine. Jibreel23 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then. I will formally begin reviewing when I wake up from my nap. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 12:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Vami

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. My name is Vami, and I will be your reviewer. During this review I may make small edits such as spelling corrections, but I will only suggest substantive content changes in comments here. For responding to my comments, please use

Done,

Fixed,

Added,

Not done,

Doing..., or

Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. As my comments are addressed or rebutted, I will cross them out, and only my comments.

If I have demonstrated incompetence or caused offense, please let me know. ––♠Vamí _IV†♠ 12:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC) I begin to have some prescient concerns about this nomination. First, according to the Who Wrote That? tool and Xtools], you account for just 21% of the article. I also found that text you wrote is not entirely supported by the sources cited; Citations [8] and [47] for example. I dislike failing GANs, especially with an active nominator, so at this point I will not; but I wish nonetheless to express my concern at the state of this article. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 03:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

As a rule of thumb, leads should not exceed four paragraphs. There are presently five. I would rework the lead into having the first paragraph as it is now, then short history that includes that mention of the NRHP listing, and then two paragraphs about the airport and its environs as a mover of people and goods. Done

History

I found the start of this section, in media res as it were, highly confusing and I think it should be rewritten to be condensed generally and expanded on the matter of the airport's conception and construction (if sources allow this). Here are some pointers I would offer:

~~[...] a cost of $6 million. Readers would benefit from the use of Template:Inflation here.~~

Done

~~The following year it was opened on October 1, 1928. "The following year" is redundant and could be cut with no loss in quality to the article.~~

Done

~~Pilots called it the "Newark Cinder Patch" because of the hard-packed cinder runway. This may be an unnecessary detail, and too reliant on jargon.~~

Done

~~In 1930, the nation's first air traffic controller tower [...] Shouldn't this be "control tower"?~~
There's a lot "the first" happening in #Initial development that could more effectively be delivered with a single sentence, a la "When it opened, Newark Airport became the first airport in the nation to have an air traffic control tower and weather station, runway lighting, [etc.]."

Done

The first passenger terminal, Building 51, opened in 1935, and is dedicated by Amelia Earhart. This restates The Art Deco style Newark Metropolitan Airport Administration Building, adorned with murals by Arshile Gorky, was built in 1934 and dedicated by Amelia Earhart in 1935.

Done

@Vami IV: I implemented the proposed changes, and a few others with the lead and initial development paragraphs. I might do some more edits, but let me know what else is there to change. Jibreel23 (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~It served as the terminal until the opening of the North Terminal in 1953. This sentence still lacks a citation.~~

Done

Archie Armstrong was an engineer with he City of Newark, and an important part of the airport's construction in 1927 and during World War II. What exactly did Armstrong do?

Done

~~The only part of the second paragraph supported by citation [8] is the above sentence.~~

Done

I reiterate my suggestion that the first two paragraphs should be merged and condensed, and that the development and construction of the airport more thoroughly discussed. I imagine that your best sources for this will be old newspapers. Thus, I recommend using ProQuest via the Wikipedia Library, applying for Newspapers.com access through the same service, and looking through the Internet Archive's Books to Borrow site for more material.

Done

On August 1928, a four-passenger Ryan monoplane from Washington D.C., made the first landing on a completed section of 1,600-foot-long runway, the first hard-surfaced strip of any commercial airport in the nation. This is not supported by the attached citation. This needs to be supported by a citation to a reliable source.

Done

I notice that practically the only source used in the earlier portions of #History is the relevant Images of America entry. While this is reliable, it is also threadbare. You should look for additional sources, perhaps by collaborating with other editors (especially if they are also in New Jersey and/or the NYC metropolitan area).

Done

@Vami IV: I think I completed more of your suggestions. For Archie Armstrong I put as much as I could find which is not a lot. Let me know if there is any more, I need to do. Jibreel23 (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Failing

With profuse apologies to the nominator, I must say that I do not believe that this article can pass GAN in its present condition; the prose needs reworking - expansion here, condensing there - and more sources need to be sought out and used. To this end, I have offered the nominator help in all this so that the article may hopefully soon again be presented to GAN for consideration for the green cross. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 03:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.