Talk:Nels Nelsen Hill

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, I will review this article shortly.

MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Review

I apologize if what I have written is confusing, as for some reason I had difficulty understanding the article, so some of my suggestions may be off-base. And the suggestions are just that, only suggestions.

• Lede

• "In the vicinity was a K-60 hill and other smaller hills."

• Should it be "another K-60" since Big Hill was rebuilt to a K-80 hill in 1948?

• Big Hill

• This was a little confusing.

• First, should the heading be "History" or "Early history"? It seems strange to have the name of the hill as a heading.
• "The pinnacle of the club" - would the "high point" be better?
• It's not really clear until half way through the section, that the hill hasn't been built yet and that the section is basically describing how the hill came to be built.

• Perhaps if it were clear where the Winter Carnival Tournament was held in 1915, it would help the reader know that the location was not suitable and a new location needed to be found. Then the process of determining the location would make sense.

• "The venue was first used for the 1916 Winter Carnival." - would be clear if it said: Big Hill wall first used for the 1916 Winter Carnival. (I assume that the Winter Carnival is the same thing as Winter Carnival Tournament.)
• "He would beat his own record several times and keep the hill record until 1921." - He beat his own record several times - no need for the conditional.
• "Three thousand spectators watched the games, which saw large portions of the world elite compete." - makes it seem like the games saw large portions complete - also "world elite" is vague. Suggest: "Three thousand spectators watched the games, in which many of the world's elite skiers competed."
• "In 1922, Isabel Coursier debuted as the first women to jump in the hill." - is "jump in the hill" the right phrase?
• "who hoped to attract the world elite" - who is meant by the "world elite" - is that the Roaring 20s international set?

• Big Bend Ski Jump

• This is a major section of the article, but it is not about Big Hill.

• Perhaps it should be a subsection of the next section?

• Nels Nelsen Hill

• "The first tournament was the International Invitational Ski Jumping Tournament, which was held in March 1949 and spectated by 2,500 people."

• Suggestion: The first tournament was the International Invitational Ski Jumping Tournament held in March 1949, and attended by 2,500 people.

• "It was inaugurated by Art Johnson and the tournament was won by Petter Hugsted of Norway, who jumped 75 meters (247 ft). In 1950, the first Tournament of Champions was held, which saw seven invited Norwegian jumpers."
• Who is Art Johnson?

• In 1950, the first Tournament of Champions was held, which saw seven invited Norwegian jumpers. - it sounds like the Tournament "saw"

• Suggest: In 1950, the first Tournament of Champions was held to which seven Norwegian jumpers were invited.
• (or) Seven Norwegian jumpers were invited to the the first Tournament of Champions held in 1950.

• "although this brought fewer spectators." - resulted in fewer spectators?
• "the interest for ski jumping was declining, resulting in lower attendance." - interest in ski jumping?
• "the venue" - easier if Nels Nelsen Hill is used, unless the venue doesn't refer to the hill.
• "The Tournament of Champions continued into the early in 1970s." - I think this is the first mention of the Tournament of Champions under Nels Nelsen Hill. So this tournament has been held all along?
• "The last tournament was a junior event held in 1975. The venue has since fallen into disrepair." - Why did it ceased to be used?

Hope this is helpful. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Meanwhile I'll place the article on hold. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review and the copy-edit suggestions. I added some more information on the closing with a new source. The last thing I did before submitting for GAN was to change the article from a single "history" section to the three chronological parts (you can see this structure in the article history). I actually don't mind the older system, but that will result in only a single section. Normally I make three sections for sports venues: "construction" or "history, "facilities" and "events". I found that the facilities section would be difficult as there is no "current" standard to write about, and that events are largely tied to the history. Any thoughts if either of these sectioning would be better? Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

This is the problem, from the MoS: The following points apply specifically to section headings:

• Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.).

I'll try to think of a solution. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• ok if I remove this sentence: "The Tournament of Champions during 1971 and 1972 went with a heavy loss"? It doesn't seem to be supported by the source. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The source says (page 10): "As well, the jumping tournaments of 1971 and 1972 had been a financial disaster and the jump had been difficult to prepare in 1972 due to too much snow." In case you missed it, each of the museum entries has about 20 short pages which have to be scrolled through with the arrows. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
    • ok, what do you think of the new headings? I just couldn't think of anything else. What's your reaction? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The new headings look fine and a better way of phrasing than the names of the hills. Is there anything outstanding now? Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
        • It's fine now. A nice little article. I enjoyed it. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   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:

• Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)