Talk:Skarnsund Bridge/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Pyrotec in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

A reasonable, short article on a bridge, at or about GA level.

Comments:

  • History-
  • The fatal accident needs a citation.
  • The loss of the ferry jobs needs a citation.
  • Ref 8 has a broken link.
  • I'm not sure about your translation of the word 'Preserve' as in 'bridge was preserved as a cultural heritage'. I can't find the original Norsk citation; Ref 11 which is listed as Norwegian is mostly an English summary (I much prefer English). Could 'listed' be a better translation?

Pyrotec (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Arsenikk has not been here for a couple of weeks so I'll try to help here. I have not addressed all your points now, but I'll come back. I have updated ref 11. The source refer a proposal and not the actual decision. I have added a ref to the legislation that protects the bridge. Preserved. I agree that this not seem to be a good word for the Norwegian word fredning. I think a better word is protected. Rettetast (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping out. Sorry, I have a Englisk-Norsk / Norsk-Englisk dictionary, which I'm happy to use for one or two words, but I can't cope with whole articles in Norsk. Arsenikk now seems to have been gone for three weeks, so I've taken over one of his outstanding railway reviews.Pyrotec (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have tried to find sources, but have not had any luck. the facts probably comes from offline sources. I have removed them for now. They can be readded later if sources are added. Rettetast (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks very much for your assistance. I will now continue the WP:GAN.Pyrotec (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

summary

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    Most are in Norsk, but with my limited linguistics skills they appear to confirm what is being stated
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    Most are in Norsk, but with my limited linguistics skills they appear to confirm what is being stated
    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:  

Thanks are due to Rettetast for assisting due to the extended absence of the nominator. I'm awarding GA-status to the article.Pyrotec (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply