Talk:Ullevaal Stadion/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll review this article over the next few days. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Review done, here are the issues I found:

• There are two disammbiguations, Bama and Sprinkler; not sure where they're meant to be directed.
• "From 1948, Ullevaal has hosted the finals of " would prefer Since 1948
• "1985, and the two-tier North and East Stands in 1990 and the South Stand in 1998." would tweak to "and continued with" since as is the sentence feels like a chunk is out.
• It may be good if the history section was split a bit; it's quite long and makes it hard to find a break. At the very least sectionize the 90s financing issues.
• "head office on many sports federations" head office of, rather
• "could not receive public grants with a so strong tie" let's try 'with such a strong tie'
• "I November," In
• "forbid a club" forbade a club, since it seems to be past tense
• "would become a hinder" a hindrance
• "and a new two-tier stand be built," would be built.
• ""In March 2001, NFF gave Lyn a loan for NOK&nsbp;12.5 million," space break seems messed up
• "Total area was 24,000 square meters (260,000 sq ft), including 1,500 square meters (16,000 sq ft) for the congress center, 5,000 square meters (54,000 sq ft) for the four-story hotel, and an expansion of the shopping center by 6,300 square meters (68,000 sq ft), making the total area 53,000 square meters (570,000 sq ft)." The total area was; also, this sentence does read a little off, though not sure which part should be fixed.
• "The stadium contains a 39 square meters" take out the a
• "There is a photography room, and separate section " either 'a separate section' or 'separate sections'
• "these are within five minutes walk." a five minute walk
• "Part of the rationale for their own stadium, is that Vålerenga" comma unneeded

The only problem that concerns me is the prose in the history section. After a while, it felt a little dry going through all the stock issues going on. Much of it is probably because that's not exactly up my alley, but trimming pieces of it to make it an easier read wouldn't be that bad an idea. It's okay for GA, but I wouldn't see it passing FA just yet. For the above, the article's on hold and I'll pass it when the issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've fixed up all the issues you commented on [although not trimming the stock issues, which I'll get back to when I have more time]. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks much better now. Since the stock issue isn't really a GA concern, I'm going to pass this article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)