Talk:Longyearbyen/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Arsenikk in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 20:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Fortunately I won't be able to say much: the article is in very good shape. I've tweaked the lead, please review these changes if you can.
- Images check out.
- I would like to just check if Holm is really the only source here though. It's used a lot, and I'm always a bit weary of doing that, even if we trust the source (which I do) in itself. Are there are sources you could just slot or duplicate to confirm the details. I really would like to see that, it helps on several of the criteria. Otherwise sourcing, referencing, verifiability good (checked a couple where I lack of Norwegian wasn't a problem).
- Layout's good, lead is generally good (per changes).
- Focus is pretty good. I think some careful consideration is needed over quite what details of Svalbard in general are required here, but the article still meets the criteria in this respect.
If you could just give other sources a look, then I'm happy to pass. (On hold.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article. The advantage of Holm, beyond being reliable, is that she is good at sticking dates to activities and is good at covering some of the less grandeur aspects of the communities history. The problem with Arlov is that the books has very little detail, although it does cover some of the general points, which is why I've cited him where I can. I've taken a look at a few sources and they are not as accurate as Holm, but I've made a few substitutions where sufficient detail could be found. To be a bit frank, I would have to spend hours doing what you ask, without any guarantee of success, while I am confident that the article does meet the GA criteria as it stands now. I would much rather spend that time writing other article in need. Arsenikk (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- And an impressive record you have too. Thanks for taking a look, I'm prepared to accept that. If you're fine with the lead changes (and I'm assuming you are), I'll process the pass tomorrow. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Lead changes look good; I'm always glad to have a second pair of eyes look at the prose. Arsenikk (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- And an impressive record you have too. Thanks for taking a look, I'm prepared to accept that. If you're fine with the lead changes (and I'm assuming you are), I'll process the pass tomorrow. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)