Talk:Birkebeineren Ski Stadium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: found and fixed four.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Construction started in early 1991, before planning was completed, and later until 1993. Please rephrase, this is confusing and unclear.

   Materials for the buildings were concrete and wood. This included 3,000-square-meter (32,000 sq ft) of temporary housing, a 1,620-square-meter (17,400 sq ft) building subsequently converted to a riding center, and a 3,200-square-meter (34,000 sq ft) tent. Again poor organisation and grammar.

   In October, the sections along the tracks were partially cleared to allow spectators without tickets to watch the events. I don't get the meaning of this. Sections of what?

   ''a 355-square-meter (3,820 sq ft) technical house What is a technical house?

   For both it and the men's 50 km, nearly 75,000 spectators watched from the track side. This is repeated from the previous section.

   The stadium has also since 1992 been used as the goal area for Birkebeinerrennet Needs explanation of what "Birkebeinerrennet" is, wikilinking is not enough.

   I made a number of copy-edits.[2]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   References look good, RS, no OR. I assume good faith for sources in Norwegian.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough with unnecessary detail.

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):

   One image used with suitable tag and caption. It would be good to have an image of the venue and also a location map, but not GA criteria.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for the issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

   OK, that is all good now. Congratulations! (You may run out of Noway topics eventually! :-) ) Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've fixed up all the prose issues in point 1. I don't like the lack of a decent image either, but nothing free is available, and I live far away, so I cannot take a picture myself. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

   Just one point left "technical house" needs explanation. In English this generally refers to a type of "house music"! Jezhotwells (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry for missing the line. The source is in English, and it uses the term "technical house". I must admit that I at first thought that it was a translation, since the word for "house" in Norwegian is often also used for buildings, and I can only guess at what the term means. Perhaps "technincal building" or something such as that is better? 21:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

   I wonder if plant room would be better? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

   Done. Sounds like a suitable and more explanatory name. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, I think so. The prose in the LOOC report is not really GA quality! Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)