# Talk:Bergen Aviation

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bergen Aviation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: InTheAM (talk · contribs) 13:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


### Well-written
a) The prose needs some work in this article.

"By 1986 it was owned 50 percent by the insurance company Vesta and 20 percent by Vestlandsreiser, with the rest of the shares being owned by various Bergen companies."
Should be more like: "Fifty percent Bergen Aviation was owned by the insurance company Vesta, twenty percent was owned by Vestlandreiser, and the rest was own by various Bergen companies."
What does "Bergen companies" refer to?
"Vestlandsreiser stated that the reason was that Transwede had repeated delays and cancellations." This sentence should be moved into the sentence stating the termination of the agreement.
"To operate the charter routes, Bergen Aviation bought a 99-seat Sud Aviation SE-210 Caravelle from Hispania Líneas Aéreas, financed with a loan from Nevi. The service was originally planned to start on May 1."
When did they buy the plane? What year were services to start?  It is not clear as it is written.
"carrying 2,000 to 3,000 per day" - 2000 to 3000 passengers I'm assuming.  Include passengers in the sentence.
There are two sentences in a row that begin with "He further stated..."
This sentence — "The application was part of a trend among smaller Norwegian airlines to apply for new route; at the time there were 42 pending applications from 15 airlines awaiting decision in the Ministry of Transport and Communications" — is a run-on.
How does this sentence — "Vestlandsreiser subsequently bought its own aircraft, a Boeing 737-300" — relate to the previous sentences.
Overall, the article reads more like a timeline and is hard to follow.
b) The lead is good. However, in the infobox there seem to be headings with missing information.  IATA, IACO and Callsign look out of place or unnecessary or incomplete.


#### Factually accurate and verifiable
References are fine.  No original research is apparent.


#### Broad in its coverage
The article does not go into unnecessary detail and covers the main topic.  


#### Neutral
The article is neutral.


#### Stable
The article is stable.


#### Images
Images are tagged and have good captions.
I am putting the review on hold so that these issues can be addressed. InTheAM 14:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. All the copy-editing issues have been seen to, and I've rearranged to first paragraph of the history section slightly to make it more topical and less "timeliney". As for the infobox codes, as far as I have been able to identify, none were ever issued to the airline, as it never received permission to operate revenue flights. For esthetic reasons, I've added N/A to the fields, as the infobox won't let the line disappear, and I don't really want to mess with an infobox used on 2,700+ pages. Arsenikk (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The changes look good.  I do not understand the relationship between the cancellation of the Transwede agreement and Bergen Aviation, though.  It is not clear in the article.  That should probably be fixed. InTheAM 15:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope it is better explained now. Arsenikk (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)