Talk:Mowi/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:Marine Harvest/GA1)
Latest comment: 16 years ago by ThinkBlue in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- In the Pan Fish section, this sentence ---> "When the market price of salmon collapsed in 2001[23] Pan Fish encountered extreme financial difficulties", is there a period missing?
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- In the Pan Fish section, this sentence ---> "When the market price of salmon collapsed in 2001[23] Pan Fish encountered extreme financial difficulties", is there a period missing?
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- I noticed that dates in the references are linked and it would be best if they were unliked, per here. In the Merger section, the date "2006-07-06" needs to be properly formatted and also unlinked. Question: Since the article is talking about a Norwegian business, shouldn't the dates be international? The article tends to have red links, if they don't link to anything, it would be best to unlink them, per here.
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed that dates in the references are linked and it would be best if they were unliked, per here. In the Merger section, the date "2006-07-06" needs to be properly formatted and also unlinked. Question: Since the article is talking about a Norwegian business, shouldn't the dates be international? The article tends to have red links, if they don't link to anything, it would be best to unlink them, per here.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I have addressed most of the concerns, except those mentioned here: First, I presume the fair use related to the logo being in .svg-format; all I can find is that .svg-format is permitted if rendered in low resolution (as is the case here). Second, the five red links all are "to something that could plausibly sustain an article." (from WP:REDDEAL), and there is no GA criteria (unlike in FA) that says plausible red links should be delinked, so I would recommend the red links stay. Last, I don't know how to remove the linking to dates in the {{cite web}} templates—if you do please inform me and I can make the corrections. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, that's my bad there, I forgot to fix the fair-use section. Sorry. I removed the dates, see here. The rest is fine and done for. Thank you to Arsenikk for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)