A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
It is well written and can be read easily. The article provides factual information while staying on topic and not giving useless or overly detailed information that the reader would neither need nor understand. There are no major grammatical errors except for the fact that British and American spellings are often alternated between, this is an issue that should be addressed. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), any more (B) (American: anymore), programme (B) (American: program). Fixed 11:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Almost no problems, but there are some issues that should be addressed.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Units of measurement, there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 50 metres, use 50 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 50 metres.
As said above, practically all lines and sentences seem to be cited. Some paragraphs, such as this one, might do better with one or two more citations, but they are still fine.
Running it through earwig shows only one result, where a sentence says similar facts to the airport's about page, but as it is simply mentioning facts this is almost definitely a coincidence and is not a copyvio.
One of the hardest parts of writing an article is staying on topic, and this article has done it well. It provides plenty of information, yet it stays on topic and makes sure not to provide information the reader would not find useful.
The images could have some more descriptive captions and should have some form of alt text. Instead of Outside view of the airport, perhaps change it to Outside view of [TERMINAL] in [YEAR], etc.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pretty good article, but some minor issues should be addressed if it is to be promoted to GA status. Passed, congratulations!