Talk:NSB El 18/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   ... and the cabs are pressure tight. What does this mean?

   Explained Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

   ... and that NSB could expect "a racket" Would "dispute" be a better word than "racket"?

   It is a bit difficult to translate this. The term "skikkelig bråk" could be translated to "dispute", but it implies much more than that; these are rather angry unionists who were a bit pissed off. Dispute seems a bit soft, but then again it may be more accurate than racket. Anyhow, there seems to be no optimal translation here. I'll change it though. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for the fixes. Dispute is a better word in English. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References appear to check out.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Sufficient detail without trivia.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Licensed, captioned and tagged.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the very fast review. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, I am now happy to pass this. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)