# Talk:Trans Polar

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trans Polar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk · contribs) 15:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I will start the review later today.  VC  15:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that "later today" turned into more than two days.  VC  00:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I will put this article on hold for you to address the following issues.  VC  00:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead
Was Trans Polar the official name of the airline company, or did it have a more official sounding name? For instance, United Air Lines, Inc. operates under the name United Airlines. If there is a more official name, it should be included in the first sentence.
Added. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikilink Denmark, Sweden, and any other countries the first time you use them throughout the article.
The MOS stated to not link "major geographic features", including countries, unless directly tied to the topic. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The term "Boeing 720s" should be used when referring to multiple aircraft of that type. Also, make sure to include Boeing before the number in all cases.
Will go through and fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The abbreviation NOK is not properly introduced. I would place it in parentheses after the wikilink for Norwegian krone.
Ups. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Establishment
You introduced Tjøntveit in the Lead, so you should only use his last name throughout the rest of the article. The first sentence has his full name.
Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"The airline stated they had made agreements to operate the service for at least five years." Does "the service" = transporting general aviation aircraft? You should clarify that in this sentence because there are many different types of service mentioned in the paragraph. I suggest also replacing "the airline" with the name of the company because readers may think Pan Am made that statement.
Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"The plans changed dramatically..." Can you explain why the plans changed dramatically? Also, does ref 3 apply to this sentence?
Good catch; I had added ref 3 retrospectively. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"including strawberries from Belgium." You mention frieght and maintenance in the previous clause of the sentence, so you should insert "transporting" before strawberries. If possible, add the destination of the strawberries.
Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Fleet
"The aircraft had a seating of 156 or 149." Seating capacity?
Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
It would be great if you could give a timeframe for when this fleet existed in the form you describe.
Added. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Operations
This is a very long section. It would be great if you could make two or three subsections under this header or split into two or three sections.
Split into two subsections. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
You should add the year to the first date in each paragraph so readers do not get confused with which year it is.
Good idea. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"Rhodos" Is this Rhodes, the Greek isle? The Rhodos wikilink goes to an article about mythology.
Confused by the Norwegian name, which is "Rhodos". Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I would expand Palma to Palma de Mallorca. I know the link is piped, but the reader should not need to click the link to know which Palma it is.
Good idea. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"Trans Polar offered the operator the disposition" Could disposition be replaced with "use"? Readers might not understand what you are trying to say by using disposition.
Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"largely based on that Spies did not have an alternative operator" Should "on that" be changed to "on the fact that"?
Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"The company later signed agreements with the Danish tour operators Karavan-rejser and Danmarks Internasjonale Studentkomite (DIS)." Do you have dates or a general time when these agreements were signed?
No. They mere mentioned in an article related to the bankruptcy which did not specify when the contracts were signed, only that they existed. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"New shares worth NOK 825,000 were issued" Can you change this to active voice? It is not clear who is issuing what to whom.
I used passive voice to avoid starting every paragraph with "Trans Polar" or "the airline", but perhaps it is better to be active. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"Boeing's seize" Seize is being used as a noun here, so it should be seizure.
Thanks. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"Trans Polar had offensive plans to return to operations" I would change the word "offensive" because it sounds like the airline was considering sabotaging another airline or something nefarious.
Haha, good point. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The Operations section ends on a cliffhanger. Trans Polar plans to resume operations on 2 July, then boom, bankruptcy, which started 22 June. Can you reorganize the information to make the transition between sections less sudden and perhaps more chronological?
Its the first time I've been credited of writing a cliffhanger, so thanks ;) I agree with your analysis and I have tried to moderate the prose somewhat. Still, the bankruptcy will nevertheless have to come as a major break. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Bankruptcy
"The creditors lost all their values as the little assets were used to pay owed wages." Sentence should be rewritten because it was not the creditors who lose all their value; it was the Trans Polar stock that became worthless.
I have tweaked a little, but both the shareholders and the creditors lost all their assets in the bankruptcy. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I changed the sentence to "The creditors and shareholders lost all of their investments in the company because the airline's limited assets were used to pay outstanding wages."  VC  18:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
"The managing committee for the winding-up released its report in November 1977, which concluded that although the company's books showed assets of NOK 8.6 million, in reality it only had NOK 50." Wow! I did a double take at the second number. If you can, I would emphasize the number. Perhaps say "fifty Norwegian krone" so the reader does not think it is a misprint and you forgot to type a bunch of zeroes.
Sure. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"having too low a share capital" Wikilink "share capital" and any other financial jargon.
Done. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"By 1977 the long investigation time span was causing problems for the prosecutors as an increasing amount of the counts were meeting their statue of limitation." You mention statute of limitations problems in the previous paragraph. I would remove the year and move this sentence forward in the article because it makes a great first sentence of a paragraph.
Not quite sure I understood what you meant, but I moved the sentence. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
References
Verdens Gang should only be linked in the first reference to contain it.
Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You addressed all of my points, and none of them required deliberation. I will do a final copyedit of the article before I pass it. After the copyedit, please check to make sure I did not improperly change the meaning of anything.  VC  18:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)