Talk:Aalborg/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 19:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm reviewing this article, as per Doc's request. My practice is to fill out the template, and then if needed, do a more thorough prose and source review below. I also tend to copy-edit as I go, and then use this space for explanations and questions. Thanks for the opportunity! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria For the most part, a strong article. There are prose and source issues that should be addressed before it can be passed to GA, though. My biggest concern is with how the sources have been utilized; I'll explain more below.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * At times, this article reads like a travel article published by the Chamber of Commerce. This is something that can remedied easily, though; see below for suggestions.
 * Such as?♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * I did a spot check on some of the English sources; what I was able to access concerns me a bit. In some cases, the references you use don't support your statements.  See below for a more thorough explanation.
 * Such as? I gather you do that part of the review next, if you could identify all issues you see this would be great, thanks! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did a spot check on some of the English sources; what I was able to access concerns me a bit. In some cases, the references you use don't support your statements.  See below for a more thorough explanation.
 * Such as? I gather you do that part of the review next, if you could identify all issues you see this would be great, thanks! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * It looks like there has been some nice collaboration here, by three main editors. Nice!
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Images are very nice, and compliment the article well. Good job.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold until I finish my review.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Images are very nice, and compliment the article well. Good job.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold until I finish my review.


 * I read the history section and thought it was really good.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you liked it, Maunus. It certainly required a lot of time, effort, translation and referencing.--Ipigott (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I collaborated on this article, so I will assist in the review. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that it looks like all the work has been completed, I'll turn to the prose and source review now. As I state above, I tend to be thorough. I'll give examples of my more-general statements above, along with suggestions. Despite the recent copy-editing, this article at times reads like a travelogue; see below. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Prose review
History
 * Thanks to its site at the narrowest point on the Limfjord, the Aalborg area attracted settlements as far back as the Iron Age and had a thriving Viking community until around the year 1000. Although it's not technically incorrect to start a sentence with a conjunctive phrase, it's not suggested in encyclopedic writing.  To be safe, I'd re-arrange this sentence to make it clearer: "During the Iron Age, Aalborg, which had a thriving Viking community until around the year 1000, and many other villages were founded on the narrowest point on the Limfjorden fjord."  I looked at the original wording in the source to help me with this.
 * It seems to have been reworded but not in the way you suggested which isn't an improvement IMO because the and many other villages really doesn't fit the wording before it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the new version. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording adequately explains the early history. I therefore consider it ✅.


 * In the Middle Ages, the town benefitted from royal trading privileges, its natural harbour and a thriving herring fishing industry. I realize this is picky, but the phrase "benefitted from" isn't strictly encyclopedic. The source states that the town "flourished" during this period for the reasons listed; how about: "In the Middle Ages, royal trading privileges, its natural harbour and a thriving herring fishing industry resulted in the town's growth." - ✅
 * I've changed "resulted in" to "contributed to" as it was an on-going process.
 * The dvelopment mentioned, resulted in more than just more houses and a larger city. It also resulted in an expanding economy and a better standard of living in general. Should this not be reflected? I believe the word "flourished" says it all in one word. I think its a great descriptive word RhinoMind (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

✅
 * Despite a number of setbacks over the centuries, the city began to flourish once again towards the end of the 19th century with a bridge over Limfjord and the arrival of the railway. I'm sure you're going explain later, but what setbacks?  Again, not the most encyclopedic.  Since you probably will explain, I'd just remove the phrase.  And use a different word than "flourish".  And I'd restructure to state something like the creation of the bridge and railway during the 19th century resulting in the town becoming more successful or something like that.
 * The "setbacks" (now "difficulties") need to be mentioned, I think, as they really were an important feature of the city's history.
 * Again I think the word "flourish" is a good word. It is telling a lot, without minute details like, growing economy, improved standards of living, more citizens, more houses, etc.. If you dont want to go into the details, it covers the development in a reasonable way RhinoMind (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

✅
 * Its recent industrial past is now being supplemented by an increasing interest in culture and education. This is unclear; I'd change it to state that the town's recent success is because of an increase in interest in culture and education, or something similar.

The beginnings
 * 4th sentence, 1st paragraph: I'm having issues with the phrase emphasise the significance of the place as... I think my issues surround the fact that something inanimate can't act upon something else, or the use of a verb in cases like this isn't always accurate.  I'd restate it to say that the reason for the sizes of the two original settlements were due to their points on the Limfjord, or something like that.
 * It's clearer now, but I still have an issue with the wording, for similar reasons. Sizes can't explain something, not even clearly.  How about: "These settlements, one from the 6th-century Germanic Iron Age, the other from the Viking Age in the 9th to 11th centuries, were large due to their placement on the narrowest point on Limfjord, the site of a great deal of traffic between Himmerland to the south and Vendsyssel to the north." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten this once again and think it now reflects the historical evidence. ✅


 * You explain later why the Our Lady Church was demolished, but not why the Convent was shut down (at least that I can see at this early point). The mention of both cause me to ask why, so I suggest that you take out mentioning it here.
 * I've offered an explanation as suggested. ✅

All I have time for right now. I'll try to get to more tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

✅
 * One more thing about this section, something I can't believe I missed: I'd change the title of this heading to "Beginnings", as per WP:DEFINITE.

Middle Ages
 * What's the "old Alborghus"? Please link it, or if there's nothing to link, provide a few words of explanation.
 * Spelling corrected and linked. ✅


 * However, the Middle Ages also brought disaster to Aalborg. Unencylopedic, and anyway, "disaster" usually refers to an earthquake or volcano or other such natural disaster. I know you're trying for a transition here, but I'd remove it and re-structure it to solve the issue.  I'd put the 1st two sentences at the end of the previous paragraph, and start a new paragraph with the 4th sentence of the current version.


 * ...in December 1534 it was stormed and plundered by the king's troops after a revolt by the peasants under the leadership of Skipper Clement in what became known as the Count's Feud. Clunky wording; it's unclear who led the peasants revolt.  How about: "...in December 1534 it was stormed and plundered by the king's troops after a peasants' revolt, later called the Count's Feud and led by Skipper Clement."
 * I hope it is clearer now. ✅


 * Some 2000 people were believed to have been killed during this event. I know you're using British English here; is "some" a Briticism for "about" or "approximately", or are you avoiding beginning a sentence with a number? If it's the former, I'd change it to one of those words, or "over", or "a little under", or something similar.
 * I was not aware that "some" is a "Britishism". It is widely used in the English-speaking world and is much neater than "approximately". In many cases, it is not clear whether the exact figure is higher or lower that the rounded number given. I have now been through the whole article and made some substitutions. Many of the instances were introduced by other editors. I hope the two or three "some"s that now remain can be regarded as acceptable. (Google gives 726,000 hits for "some 100,000" and 1,840,000 for "about 100,000".)


 * With the Reformation in 1536, the town's two monasteries were demolished. Although technically grammatically correct, it's best to avoid starting a sentence with a preposition.  The way this is worded implies that the monasteries were demolished for religious/political reasons.  Is that the case?  Or better asked, why were they demolished?  I think you should give a brief explanation.
 * Rewritten. ✅


 * Aalborg became a bishopric in 1554. Please link "bishopric", or at least briefly define the term.  This feels a little out of place; perhaps it better belongs with the information about the important institutions established during this time.
 * I am really surprised the word "bishopric" is a problem. It is quite simply the seat of a bishop. In Wikipedia, bishopric links to various articles, none of which adequately explains the usage of the term here. It is not always the same as a diocese as in some cases the bishop does not reside in the cathedral town which heads it. I prefer to leave it as it is. I think most people will appreciate the historical importance of the city's new status as a bishopric.

Reviewer: Although technically grammatically correct, it's best to avoid starting a sentence with a preposition. Whence this notion? In my own idiolect of English, it's perfectly fine. Wondering if my idiolect perhaps differed from what's recognized as good prose style, I had a quick look at Zuleika Dobson and found Beerbohm revelling in sentences starting with prepositions. But of course a novel is not an encyclopedia. I therefore looked into Britannica, 11th ed., specifically the article "Anemometer". Even if we ignore tokens of what's a preposition as currently defined by linguists but not yet by dictionaries and so on (specifically, conditional "if"; and "although" is one too), we have:


 * In the Robinson anemometer the axis of rotation is vertical, but with this subdivision the axis of rotation must be parallel to the direction of the wind and therefore horizontal.
 * In cases where the direction of the air motion is always the same, as in the ventilating shafts of mines and buildings for instance, these anemometers, known, however, as air meters, are employed, and give most satisfactory results.
 * In this arrangement a catch is provided so that the plate being once driven back by the wind cannot return until released by hand; but the catch does not prevent the plate being driven back farther by a gust stronger than the last one that moved it.
 * In the tube anemometer also it is really the pressure that is measured, although the scale is usually graduated as a velocity scale.
 * In cases where the density of the air is not of average value, as on a high mountain, or with an exceptionally low barometer for example, an allowance must be made.

-- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

17th to 19th centuries ✅
 * Please give a direct citation to the Erik Pontoppidan quote.


 * From the beginning of the 19th century... Again, an issue with your transitions.  I think you could divide this paragraph into two; end the 2nd paragraph after the sentence preceding this one, and remove this sentence.  Then you could end this paragraph with the sentence about Aarhus.
 * Think this should be OK now. ✅


 * What do you mean by ... the sea breached the Agger Tange at the western end of Limfjord in 1825. What exactly happened here; give at least a brief description, please.
 * Quite right. It needed an explanation. ✅

✅
 * Towards the end of the 19th century there was however an upturn. More transition problems.  Again, I'd just remove this sentence, since your readers are probably smart enough to figure out from the text that the town went through ups and downs, and then start a new paragraph at In 1865...
 * Prices continued to drop after the state bankruptcy in 1813, leading to widespread poverty over a lengthy period. If you're following a chronological format, and that seems to be the case, this is out of order. Perhaps it belongs better at the start of the newly-created paragraph, before After Denmark ceded...  How long did the widespread poverty last?
 * ...some 31,500. See above re: "some". And please go through the article and correct all usages, if necessary.
 * This is not strictly chronological. It was the long-term after effects that caused the problem. With the new wording, it think it's OK. ✅

Have to stop again. Sorry for the fits and starts; it may be a day or two before I can return. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

20th century industrialisation
 * Turn of the century: Which century? Please say, "Around the beginning of the 20th century".


 * Factories with smoking chimneys grew up in the outskirts. Factories don't "grow".  I'd change it to "...were built in the outskirts of town".
 * Don't really agree with your comment but I've reworded it anyway. It's important to emphasize the smoking chimneys. I don't remember whether I've mentioned it elsewhere but in Denmark Aalborg became widely known as the city of smoking chimneys. ✅


 * During the German invasion of Denmark in 1940, the airport was one of the first landmarks captured by German paratroopers very early in the action on the night of the 21 April as German aircraft needed it in order to reach Norway. I don't think you need the phrase "very early in the action", since the invasion happened early in the war and attack of the airport was early in the Danish invasion.  You do a lot of personalisation in this article; for example, "German aircraft needed it".  I think you should change it to "as German forces needed it..."
 * Reworded. ✅

Recent developments
 * I think you should change the title of this subsection, to "Recent history".


 * By the beginning of the millennium... This should be changed for the same reason as above, re: "turn of the century".  Say "the beginning of the 21st century" or "the early 2000s".
 * Think the rewording takes care of this. ✅


 * Nørresundby: Other than in the lead, this is the first time you mention this. I suggest that you give a few words of description.
 * Good point. ✅


 * I think I've now addressed all the issues you raise on the history section. Thanks for mentioning all these points. They deserved attention.--Ipigott (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The city
 * Østerågade, once the old harbor, is noted for its fine merchants' mansions. "Fine" is peacocky.  I suggest finding another word that describes the mansions.


 * A little further out, Hasseris has become a residential district... What does "a little further out" mean?  Be more specific, please.
 * If this is a problem, it must indeed be because it is a "Britishism".


 * ✅ addressed both.

Egholm: Why is the restaurant important? Is it the only one ever built here?
 * Yes, and it's the only notable feature on the island by the side of the forest. I think it's worthy of mentioning.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Acceptable, although it might help to explain that in the article. I'm just sayin'! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Parks and green spaces
 * The list of parks is too long, which makes it hard to navigate. I suggest breaking up the list and give each park its own sentence.
 * Broken up a bit.


 * Within the zoo an African savannah has been created where with exotic animals are housed. Is there an extra "with" here?
 * Well spotted! ✅

Politics and government
 * Aalborg's current mayor is Henning G. Jensen, a Social Democrat. Well, current until the next guy is elected. I suggest changing this to: "Henning G. Jensen, a Social Democrat, has been mayor of Aalborg since 1998.''  If you do that, you should cut out the phrase about 1998 in the final sentence in the 1st paragraph.


 * The lists in the 2nd paragraph are too long. Again, you should break them up; you don't necessarily have to state "the first department is [ ], the second department is [ ], etc."  People know how to count, you know. ;)  If you did that, you wouldn't need so many parentheticals, either. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I must say I was rather surprised by all these details. As they were added by another editor, I was not too happy about too much simplification but I have worked on this a bit.

Economy
 * Industrialization has affected the historical landscape of the city although many of the traditional industries have closed in recent years, to be replaced by new knowledge-based and green-energy producers. Is there a time frame on this? What does "Historical landscape" mean?  You could re-state like this: "Historically, industrialisation has been important for the city, but many traditional industries have closed since [or by] [time frame] and has been replaced by..."
 * This has been an evolving process over the years. Think you'll find it OK now. ✅


 * Some of the major contributors to the city's prosperity are described below. Unnecessary, so I suggest that you cut it.
 * Cut. ✅

Major private companies
 * Aalborg Industries, the world's largest manufacturer of marine boilers, has 90 years experience in the field. It has recently expanded into floating production systems for the offshore market. Why is the 90 years important?  Is it because it's one of the oldest companies in the industry?  If so, you could restate to: "Aalborg Industries, the world's largest and one of oldest manufacturer of marine boilers, has recently expanded into floating production systems for the offshore market."
 * I just wanted to emphasize that one of the older factories is still thriving. ✅

Facilities
 * This city has over 300 restaurants, some specialising in gastronomic dishes from Denmark, Europe or Asia. I suggest changing "this" to "the".  What does "gastronomic dishes" mean?  Sounds like an advertising for the restaurant industry in Aalborg.


 * What was your criteria for choosing to list these three restaurants?


 * Not my choice.

Landmarks: See the religion section for details on churches. Unnecessary sentence.
 * Cut. ✅

Historic buildings
 * Describing Jens Bang's House as "the finest" is peacocky. How about attributing it to the source?  And describing Bang the way you do makes the paragraph sound like an advertisement, especially since you link him.  The same is true about describing the gables as "proud"; please find another way to describe them.


 * Please describe the Danish Distillers headquarters in a different way other than "striking".


 * Speaking of: ...combines function with highly symbolic, classical features. This sounds like it's directly from a promotional brochure, and means very little.  Please restate with clearer language.
 * It doesn't sound promotional to me. Function vs. decoration was an important trend in Europe at the time. I've nevertheless reworded it and tried to make it a little clearer for those who are not familiar with the history of architecture. ✅

Whew, this is a big review. I was able to find some extra time today, but I don't promise anything more for a couple of days, although this should keep you busy, right? ;) It's been fun learning about this city, and makes me want to visit it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Phew! Don't worry about it, I appreciate you taking the time to give it such a thorough review. Might take us a while to bear with us :-]!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Great stuff, Christine! I certainly agree with Dr. B. that your detailed comments are extremely useful. It's always helpful to have a new pair of eyes look at the prose, especially when so much of it is the result of translation. It's also good to be working with someone who takes an interest not only in the content but also in the way it is expressed. I'll certainly go through the bits I wrote myself over the next couple of days (especially the long history section) although I may not be unreservedly prepared to avoid all the "Briticisms" you cite. (For example "Some 2000 people" seems to me to be far more acceptable in English than "About 2000 people" (and we also have "some 100,000" in the lead, "some 31,500" later on and many, many more!!) -- but maybe I can find some way around it if it really bothers you. It is certainly very important not to upset American readers by any unusual turn of phrase in an article about Denmark. I also appreciate your general comments on encyclopedic usage (although the concept is new to me). It may not be the right occasion to mention it, but I would greatly appreciate receiving further background on why terms such as "setbacks", "flourish" and "benefitted from" are not encyclopedic. Anyway, I'll now embark on a full re-examination of the points you raise in the hope that we can keep everyone happy. Finally, I'm really pleased that our article has made you feel like going to Aalborg. You must let me know if ever you decide to travel to Denmark.--Ipigott (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and please take your time. I appreciate your patience with me as I get through it.  I don't think you should avoid British usage.  There are lots of articles in WP that do (this is English WP; not American), and it makes sense that an article about a city in Europe does.  Just make a decision and be consistent.  Perhaps you should put a tag on the talk page that states that the spelling and use of English here is British.  Like I said, I'm pretty familiar with British usage, but there are aspects of it that I don't know.  If "some" is a Briticism, then by all means, go with it, although I suggest that you vary it a bit, with other choices like "about" (which is ok) or "approximately".  Or you could use the exact number, if it's available in the sources.  Re: encyclopedic writing: I suggest that you read WP:W2W, a good resource.  I think of it as more formal writing.  And yes, I've always wanted to visit Denmark.  I haven't been to Europe nearly enough; well, actually once, to Paris many many years ago. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate all the time you've been spending on this, Christine, but I think we are now getting to the point where further stylistic comments on the sections we have already edited are counter-productive. I've tried to go along with your recommendations even in cases where I am not too happy with your rather personalized appreciation of "encyclopedic", "grammatical" or "British" usage. I certainly don't want to open up a long discussion here but I would point out that over the past 48 years, I have worked as an editor in North America (Canada) and Europe (European Community) in a wide variety of areas. I can also see by some of your comments that you are a relative newcomer to the field of editing. It's great to have you on board and I hope Wikipedia will continue to enrich your experience. I hope nevertheless you can come up with more of your useful suggestions on the remainder of the article as soon as possible in the hope that we can move on to the improvement of other articles. We've been working on this one since about 10 September. As I have said before, many of your comments have been extremely helpful but let's not go round in circles. If you find this out of place, then I would be happy to leave further edits of the article to my collaborators. I hope nevertheless that some day you'll get to Aalborg and see the place for yourself. No offense intended.--Ipigott (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ipigott, no of course I'm not an expert in the field of editing. I am, however, a long-time editor in this project, with over a dozen FAs and about 20 GAs to my credit, and I've reviewed lots of GAs.  The only reason I'm reviewing this article is because I was asked to, by another editor whom I respect and who has helped me some in the past.  By all accounts, this article hasn't languished in the GAC queue nearly as long as most do, and with its length and complexity, it probably would have done so, and for months.  This isn't FAC, where the requirements are more stringent and the reviewers have more expertise, but I'm not the kind of reviewer who will just let an article pass.  I'm also quite reasonable, and if you make a good faith effort to accept my suggestions and provide me with reasonable explanations about why you disagree, I usually relent.  Of course, I can stop reviewing this article at this point, and you can find another editor who you think is more qualified. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I had a feeling you might be a little upset by my comments. As I have said above and on your talk page, I really appreciate the time and trouble you have been spending on the article's prose. Most of the issues you have raised certainly deserved attention and you will see that I have indeed followed up carefully on nearly all your recommendations. I also appreciated your picking the article up quickly from the GAN queue as a special favor to Dr. B., even if is not the kind of article that would normally interest you. I certainly have no intention of discouraging your completion of the review. All I was hoping is that we can move on fairly quickly now that we have started. Do you think you could find the time to go through the rest of the article over the next couple of days? I would really like to move on to the improvement of other Danish articles, especially Copenhagen, but would like to get this one sorted out first. I see by the way that Hoary, another Brit, has made a number of detailed comments on your talk page and also here. (He has also done a substantial amount of work on the article itself.) I do not want to get bogged down in lengthy discussion about points of grammar myself but appreciate his inputs. You may also be right that the use of "some" with a number occurs too frequently in the article. I'll look at all the instances once again. I know you are working in good faith -- and so am I. I sincerely hope we can continue to work together.--Ipigott (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not upset as much as I'm insulted, to be honest. Remember, this is a volunteer endeavor, and you attract more flies with honey, as they say.  You've been around here for awhile, Ipigott, but you don't seem all that familiar with GAC.  I suggest that next time you ask another editor with the kind of expertise you want, and that you choose someone with a little bit more time than I have.  The work you've done on Danish articles is commendable and I'm glad that I've been able to help.  Another thing about dealing with volunteers: we're busy and need patience.  If I knew you were on some self-imposed time limitations, I wouldn't have started the review with my RL responsibilities and duties.  I've really only been working on this review this week, since the 15th, and I've put off some of my own projects here.  That being said, I'm busy most of today, but I'll do my best to complete it in the next few days.  I know better what to look for now, so hopefully, it'll go faster. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My dear Christine, Why on earth should you feel "insulted". I've congratulated you on pinpointing a considerable number of deficiencies in the article, most of which were of my own doing, probably as a result of translation, and now I've been through the whole thing not once, not twice but three times, trying to provide the best possible solutions to the problems you have raised. I too am a volunteer, trying to fit WP in to a strong schedule of other assignments. I am however happy to see that you appreciate the time frame. Pressed for time now. Look forward to more.--Ipigott (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to follow up on virtually all the points raised above. Maybe Dr. B. and other editors would like to look things through to ensure I have not removed anything important. I am now awaiting comments from the reviewer on the remainder of the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Progress as of 19 September:

Major venues
 * The wording about the Aalborgs Kongres & Kultur Center is a little unclear. Are the hotel, restaurant, etc. part of the sections of the Aalborg Hall?  Do you have any more information about the sections, and their purpose?  If not, that's fine.
 * Yes, the hotel, restaurant, etc., are indeed part of the centre. Most people refer to the entire complex as the Aalborg Hall (and that is indeed how it is addressed in the linked article). I looked at the wording again and think it correctly represents the situation. I was thinking of expanding on Aalborg's theatres but this would require more time. There are further explanations about the complex in the linked article.


 * Is there a link to Europahallen? Or Julius Petersen?
 * There is no separate article on Europahallen as it is convered by Aalborghallen which we have already linked to. I had thought of writing a short biography on Julius Petersen but he is not included in the usual and is therefore probably not "notable" enough for Wikipedia.

Churches
 * After the original tower was destroyed by fire in 1663, an intricately designed Baroque tower, based on that of an earlier Copenhagen city hall, was completed in 1779. Calling a tower that was completed in the 18th century "new" doesn't feel right to me.  I suggest that you say that it was replaced by the Baroque tower.  And I'd strike "striking".
 * The tower is architecturally outstanding. I hope my substitution is acceptable. ✅


 * The carved pulpit is from c. 1581. Is it correct to use abbreviations like "c."?  If not, I suggest that you re-word: "The pulpit was carved in approximately 1581."
 * This is certainly the usual way of expressing approximate year dates. Maybe other editors would like to comment on this?
 * ✅It is very common in architectural content and articles yes, but I'll reword to around.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please link or briefly explain Johannes Group.

Judiasm
 * Services ceased after him... Don't you mean that services were no longer offered after Mielziner left or died?


 * Anti-semitism still exists today in Denmark, and in 1999, an unlicensed Nazi radio station began operating from a neo-Nazi stronghold in Fynen, Nørresundby, within Aalborg municipality. Saying something "still exists today" is redundant; how about replacing the phrase with "continues to exist"?  "Within Aalborg municipality" is awkward; how about: "within Aalborg's city limits"?
 * ✅ I reworded still but I disagree with you that within Aalborg municipality is awkward and the city boundaries is not the same as the municipality boundaries anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Education
 * In 2012, 3,000 new students started at the university. Is this number typical of the incoming freshman class, or is it an increase over previous years? I ask because both are important and notable; if the typical class is large and/or if there was that much of an increase.
 * It means what it says, in 2012 3000 new students started at the university, which gives an indication of how many pupils currently enroll at the uni each year, that will suffice IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Final sentence, 1st paragraph: This sentence is too long; I recommend breaking it up. "Relevant" should have single quotes around it.  I also suggest that you paraphrase it, which would make it more interesting and less dependent upon the source.
 * ✅ Agreed, well spotted.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Re: the University College of Northern Denmark: what does "courses of professional relevance" mean? Please clarify and/or expand.
 * ✅ Removed.


 * There is also Aalborg Business College. I believe that this is an expletive sentence, which we should avoid.  How about expanding it by listing the courses they offer, if they're interesting and worth noting.  You could also state "Aalborg Business College has been in existence since ---."
 * ✅I've added info about the courses, but I don't know when it was established.


 * What is a "school camp"? Is there a link?  Notice that I added the missing article.
 * A camp for the schools. I think it's clear, pupils are taken to the island and stay at the camp and probably conduct field studies or something. I don't think it needs anything further.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you should put the last 2 sentences in this paragraph in the next one, since they're about schools for children.
 * ✅ Agreed!


 * The school does also have a danish department which educates in Danish, like the public schools in Denmark, but in a more ambitious way. "Does also have" is incorrect, and the first "danish" should be capitalized, unless you're talking about the pastry. ;) How about saying that they "conduct their classes in Danish"?  What does "a more ambitious way" mean?  Please clarify and/or explain.  Also, these statements should be sourced.
 * ✅ Removed that..♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sports ✅
 * 1st sentence, 3rd paragraph: I suggest that you separate this sentence, since it's about two different clubs.
 * Link Graham Lockey and Commander John Harris, if possible.
 * I don't think that they're notable enough for biographical articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and come back for more later this evening. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Transport ✅
 * The original station building was designed by N.P.C. Holsøe and the present building, opened in 1902, by Thomas Arboe. This wording is confusing, and makes it sound like Arboe opened the present building.  I'd re-word: "The original station building was designed by N.P.C. Holsøe and the present building, which opened in 1902, was designed by Thomas Arboe."
 * The inner city as well as the wider urban area is served by regular buses. What do you mean by "regular buses"?
 * This must again be a result of British usage as "regular" has a much more precise meaning than in American English. I've rewritten the sentence anyway. Don't want to be too defensive! ✅


 * Cycling is also popular in Aalborg with 44% of the population using their bicycles several times a week and 27% of the workforce cycling to work (2012 figures). I'd remove the word "relatively", as 44% could be interpreted differently.  The wording is also a little unclear.  How is "several times a week" and "cycling to work" different?  A work-week could be different in different part of the world.  How many times is several times and how often is cycling to work?  Also, instead of putting "2012 figures" in a parenthesis, I suggest that you incorporate it into the sentence.
 * I've followed up on some of your suggestions but I think it would be a mistake to over-interpret the information given in the source. I can imagine that many people use their bicycles for shopping, visiting friends, going to school, etc., while the figure relating to the workforce applies only to those who actually have jobs. If you really think it is unclear, then I suggest we simply remove the sentence and let people go back to the source. Partly ✅

Healthcare
 * Today it consists of two large buildings in Aalborg... Remember that "today" is too ambiguous.  I recommend saying something like, "As of 2013" or the date of the source.

Notable people
 * More recently, the actor and script-writer Preben Kaas (1930–1981) starred in over 50 Danish films. I think that you need to state if Kass was born in Aalborg or if he was raised there or went to college there or whatever.
 * Added "who was born in Aalborg" although his background can be seen from the linked biography. ✅


 * ...his iconic Utzon Center now documents and expands on his approach. What does this mean?  Please explain and/or expand.

Finished for now. I'll AGF regarding the sources, but you may want another set of eyes to look at the references before you take it further to FAC. Thanks to the editing team for being so open to my suggestions. Complete this final set, and I'll pass it to GA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Done what I can on most of the last set of issues raised. There are still a few on which I have not attached "Done". Perhaps someone else can have a look at these. There are still a number of points to be handled, especially on religion and education.--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I've covered them all now. I don't agree with some of your points Christine but you've made some really good points which have really improved this article. I asked you to review this Christine because I suspected that you might do a thorough review and highlight some of the major problems with it, and I think your review has certainly done this. Appreciate you taking the time to do such a decent review. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Dr. B.'s remarks. You've managed to pick up lots of important points which I would have missed no matter how many times I reread the article. When you know a place well -- as I know Aalborg -- you tend to make a lot of assumptions about the knowledge of your readers. That's why it was good to have someone who was completely new to the subject to do the review. I certainly hope this is a case of "All's well that ends well" and that we can work together again sometime soon.--Ipigott (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys. That's the goal, right--to improve articles and to help each other do that.  I'm glad that I was able to help, even in a small way.  Not all things are smooth, but I'm glad we're all happy with the end result, too.  Ipigott, my 2nd FAC was about a place I've never even stepped foot on--Stanford Memorial Church, but the beauty and history intrigued me so much, I was hooked.  Someday I intend to visit "MemChu", just as now I intend to someday visit Aalborg.  I look forward to seeing more from you both.  Please let me know how I can assist.  I'll go pass this article to GA now.  Congrats, good work by all involved, and good luck. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)