Talk:Norsk Forurensningskontroll/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 23:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arsenikk, can we have conversions to a more well-known currency? SpinningSpark 23:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• • This issue is brought up occasionally, including not too long ago at FLC, and the consensus was to not convert currencies. I could give a very long reason for this, but to shorten it somewhat: 1) there would be no natural currency to convert to; it is a European topic, so € or GB£ would be most natural, but then again € didn't exist back then; also, a large share of Wikipedia readers come from all sorts of countries, many of which will not have a "feeling" for whatever currency is chosen. The country which will have the most readers about this topic is probably Norway (nearly all Norwegians are fluent in English and use of en.wp is widespread in Norway) 2) What exchange rate should be used? At the time or current? Remember that exchange rates fluctuate a lot, partially because the NOK goes up and down, but also because of the volatility of the larger currencies (US$, £, € etc) 3) Should the converted value be inflation-adjusted, and if so, should it be noted in both NOK and a foreign currency, and should it use the inflation of the foreign currency or NOK. Finding the conversion values from NOK to whatever currency you "think in" is easy, while adding a conversion will introduce a subjective number which strictly speaking is not encyclopedic. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Widerøe". This is not well known in the English-speaking world. It would help if it the article specifically stated it is an airline.
  • Good idea. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• "...right type of oil..." The meaning of this is not explained. What are the solvents being used and why do they only work on some oils?
  • If I knew, I would add it. I had never heard of this airline before I came across the image, and this is all I've been able to dig up about it. I agree that it is not a particularly encyclopedic description, but the news sources which are available are not more specific. If it's too vague, it can instead be removed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 1 does not have a page number.
  • It's a news release from a news agency, so it doesn't have a page number. The releases are searchable from Atekst, which is again among other things available for all computer with an IP address from Norwegian colleges and universities. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I wondered about that, but I was comparing it with ref 3 which does have a page number. So there is still an inconsistency there somewhere.
      • In ref 3, the articles is in the newspaper Aftenposten, but the author of the article is the news agency. In ref 1, it is the raw news release from the newspaper, without it being published in a newspaper. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

SpinningSpark 12:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I consider this article GA standard once the above points are addressed. SpinningSpark 10:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Article promoted, SpinningSpark 18:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)