Wikipedia:Peer review/List of airports in the Philippines/archive1

List of airports in the Philippines

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Wow...it's been a while since I last sent anything for a PR! :P

But anyway, I would like to send the article List of airports in the Philippines for peer review. It appears that it is in a fairly advanced stage of list development, and having worked on this list for years alongside other editors, I think this can make for a fine featured list if the opportunity warrants it. Responses will very much be appreciated, and thanks in advance to everyone for the suggestions. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The list contains a lot of valuable and interesting information, but it will need a lot of work before it is ready for FLC. Below is a list of suggestions for improvement. I would suggest working on the sourcing issues first and then tackling the many Manual of Style issues.

• The dab-checker tool at the top of this review page finds one link (Sulu) that goes to a disambiguation page rather than its intended target.

• Per WP:MOSBOLD, I would recommend removing the double bolding of "airport" and "Philippines" from the first sentence of the lead. Also, "Airport" is too common to need a link.

• Featured lists have moved away from starting with the formulaic "This is a list", and the words of the article title don't have to be exactly repeated if those words force the "this is a list" construction. Instead, you might use something like this: "Airports in the Philippines fall into three classes defined by the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP), or they are unclassified."

• I'd expand the lead to include a summary of what the lists include. For example, it would be helpful to say how many airports are international, how many are "community", and so on. Perhaps the "Classification" systems should be briefly mentioned here too since the lead is to be a summary of the whole article.

• Per WP:MOSBOLD, italics would be better for emphasis than bolding in the ATO and CAAP subsections and also in the tables, where the bolding causes double-bolding problems in the "Airport name" column.

• The "Classification" section is largely unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph (except the lead if the summarized material is already sourced in the main text), every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every claim that is apt to be questioned.

• When did the change from the ATO system to the CAAP system occur? The text says, "The change was made pursuant to the Philippine Transport Strategic Study and the 1992 Civil Aviation Master Plan." This sounds a little like government-speak and includes the indefinite "pursuant to". Sometimes plans are announced many years before they are carried out.

• The em dashes in this section should be unspaced.

• Abbreviations such as IACO, ITAI should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use.

• "are assigned RPL- and RPU- codes; those in the Visayas, Masbate and Palawan (except for Cuyo), RPV- and RPS-; and those in Mindanao, RPM- and RPN-." - I don't know if these can be spelled out, but they should at least be explained in a general way. What are they for? What do they mean?

• "Airports whose ICAO codes are in italic may be obsolete as they do not fit the current scheme." - None appears in italics.

• What is the meaning of the slashed-out abbreviations in the ICAO column?

• What are the reliable sources for the coordinates? If one source supports all the coordinates in any particular table, you could add an inline citation immediately after the "Coordinates" head at the top of the column. Ditto for the information in the other columns.

• The general references listed at the bottom aren't sufficient to meet WP:V. You need inline citations that support specific individual claims or groups of claims. They would generally resemble the form of Footnote 1. It would then make sense, I think, to merge the "Footnotes" and "References" under one head, "References".

• Footnote 1 is complete, but the other footnotes are not. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all of those are known or can be found.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)