Talk:Esbjerg

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Esbjerg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this as requested. I'll try and leave some comments immediately, but will finish the review tomorrow. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

• The lead complies per WP:LEAD as it summarises the article. I did have a question about the "white-coloured men", but looking at the picture of the monument there is really no other way of describing it!

History and economy

• The first sentence "Esbjerg's oldest existing house, on the corner of Kongensgade, was built around 1660." seems to feel a bit disconnected from the larger paragraph, could you merge this into the main paragraph?

Done.--Ipigott (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• "After the war, the town developed several agricultural industries," - which war?

Second World War, now clarified.--Ipigott (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Geography

• "By sea, it is situated roughly 380 miles (610 km) northeast of Harwich, England." - do you think this should mention how close it is to Harwich? Is Harwich significant to Denmark?

If you read the Transport section it is very significant to Esbjerg as most visitors arriving come from there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Landmarks

• "Several more churches were established after the World War II" - makes no sense, how about "after the Second World War"?

Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Unusual for a church, it is built of aerated concrete." - why was it unusual for a church?

@Ipigott:?

I am simply stating was is said in the sources. It seems to me to deserve inclusion. (Although I am not familiar with the use of this material in other churches in Denmark, I really do not think original research is required here.)--Ipigott (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• "The Printing Museum traces the history of the art of printing from the beginning of the 20th century until it was replaced by modern technology." - until what was replaced by modern technology? The printing?

Yes, of course!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Transport

• "while construction of a new freight terminal in the Sydhavn section of the harbour is scheduled for 2014" - it's 2014 now, do you know what month/season it is scheduled to open?

@Ipigott:?

Sometime back, I read it was scheduled for August but we're already in July. I think it's probably better just to keep to the year. And again, that is what the source says. We may be able to update when the terminal is actually opened.--Ipigott (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

References

There are no dead links and all the references meet the GA criteria. The citations are also in their correct places.

On hold

There are very few problems with this article, the only ones I found were a few minor copy editing issues and there were a couple of ones I corrected myself during the review. The lead and most of the sections comply per the GA criteria, so if these points can be addressed then this article should have no problem with passing the GAN! I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days, although it won't need it! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thank you for addressing those concerns. The article now meets the GA criteria - the lead, sections, prose, images and the references are all in good standing and few copy editing issues existed in the first place! Without anything I'll promote this well deserved GA. Well done! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)