Talk:Anna Bågenholm/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tris2000 (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I am planning to review this article and will be pasting here my initial comments in the next few hours. --Tris2000 (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Introduction and criteria
Following Good Article criteria, I will be listing in order some of the changes I think need to be made before this article can be passed. Any extra comments or suggestions by other reviewers are most welcome. Once the nominator has addressed these issues I will mark them as ✅.--Tris2000 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

On the whole, very well written, accurate, and no original research. Links work and are all from important sources, ie no blogs. I have picked up on a couple of (minor) issues. The article is also very stable, no edit wars or vandalism.--Tris2000 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Initial suggested changes
In the first paragraph, you say that this happened "During a skiing trip to Norway in 1999". This is ambiguous as it sounds as though the accident happened while she was actually en route to Norway to go skiing. I would replace "to" with "in" or, better still, "During a Norwegian skiing trip in 1999".--Tris2000 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅  The left orium  14:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In "Background and incident", you say: "Bågenholm went on a skiing trip to Norway in May 1999 with her medical colleagues. They went there to visit Yngve Jones, a doctor at the hospital in Narvik, who was about to celebrate his retirement with a party." Well, they didn't go to Norway to visit Yngve, they went to Norway to ski - you have established that already - but they went to Narvik, during their skiing holiday, to visit Yngve. Therefore, consider rewriting the second sentence thus: "During their stay they decided to go to Narvik to visit Yngve Jones, a doctor at the hospital there, who was about to celebrate his retirement with a party."--Tris2000 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Consider adding wikilink to first mention of: Norway. --Tris2000 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅  The left orium  14:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed an error here. Hold on.  The left orium  14:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Turns out I had misread the sources. I have now made a few changes to the "Background and incident" section and the lead.  The left orium  14:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have noticed this has thrown up another small issue. You write "May 20, 1999". in the following paragraph you write "30 May 1999". I would therefore recommend removing the comma and writing it "20 May 1999" to keep in style with rest of article.--Tris2000 (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. Fixed. :)  The left orium  16:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Common terms such as countries should not be linked.  The left orium  14:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, point taken. Agreed.

Date of birth. Surely you can find this out. She is a living person, somewhere there must be an article out there which will tell you her date of birth other than "born in 1970". Have you really checked them all? --Tris2000 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have checked pretty much all articles out there and none of the mention her birth date.  The left orium  14:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, well not much more we can do there, then! Agreed.--Tris2000 (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Change "Oslo Hospital" to "the National Hospital in Oslo". Oslo Hospital is not the name of the hospital. --Tris2000 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I used the Toolserver site to find you have 17 redirected links. Some of them I would certainly consider redoing, eg instead of paralyzed consider actually doing it thus paralyzed rather than relying on a redirect which is not within your control.--Tris2000 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC) When quoting newspaper articles in other languages, consider changing the name of the language from (in Spanish) to using the "es icon" tag. Ditto for Swedish, Norwegian, etc.--Tris2000 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I have one point to raise as to the article's neutrality: You say she was in the ice for eighty minutes (forty minutes of which she was clinically dead). However, most of the articles in your source, such as the Spanish ones and the Colin Blackstock article from the Guardian, only ever refer to her being under the ice for forty minutes. Is there a controversy over how long she was down there? Clearly sources disagree. If indeed there is, then perhaps this should be mentioned. At the very least, I would have thought that, you could address this discrepancy by changing the final sentence of "Rescue attempts" from "Bågenholm had been in the water for eighty minutes when she was rescued." to "Although a number of newspapers at the time reported Bågenholm as being in the water for forty minutes, she had in fact been there for a total of eighty minutes by the time she was rescued." And I guess you can link to the Guardian and El País articules to show articles exist that say she'd 'only' been there for 40.--Tris2000 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅  The left orium  14:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed a few redirects.  The left orium  14:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the point in doing that. I prefer the way it is now.  The left orium  14:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this is just my point of view. Personally, I think it looks smarter, see for instance the references in Nuria Bermúdez, an article which I wrote and am also hoping for GA status. The titles are translated into the language of the wiki, and the language uses the style. However, this is a personal style, so not one that should delay the article's promotion to GA.--Tris2000 (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to keep the titles in their original language.  The left orium  16:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just an error on their part. Not worth mentioning in the article.  The left orium  14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Agreed.

With regards to images: The ones you use are fine. You really should however try harder to find an actual photo of Anna Bågenholm. If you cannot find one that is copyright free, consider looking on Google Images and then either contacting the copyright holder for permission, or alternatively read through the relevant Wikipedia page on non-free use (GA%3F) and consider whether you could justify using one of those images. But I would be cautious. However, using a still from that interview you link from could be fair-use, I would imagine. However, do check here that the criteria are applicable. Ideally, until you find such an image, I would have thought that you should put a "Replace this image female.svg" in the infobox.--Tris2000 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already checked for free images (on Flickr, Google, etc.) and there are none. I'd prefer not to include any non-free images and the "Replace this image female.svg" picture only makes the article look ugly IMO.  The left orium  14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good enough reasons, agreed.--Tris2000 (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing! :)  The left orium  14:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

- - - - - '''please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -

If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.