Talk:Balbergbakken/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Thanks for the review. I've added the K-lengths to the Ministry of Culture links, even though I'm no big fan of "inventing" page names. I've removed the bit about television images—it seems to be an unreferenced sentence from the Norwegian Wikipedia article, but none of the sources I have found mention this explicitly. I've tried to explain K-120 somewhat better. Sorry about the lack of grammar. I'm not quite sure why there were so many errors in this article; I always do an extra check for two before nominations—perhaps I just had a bad day. This sort of fine-tuning is also probably the Achilles heel of my Wikipedia contributions. The copyedit is most appreciated. All should have been seen to now. Arsenikk (talk)  11:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I made a number of copy-edits for style and clarity. This really should have been done before nomination.
 * The lead mentions "bad television images" as a reason for the venue not being used for the Winter Olympics, but this is not given as a reason in the article body. Also the phrase "bad television images" needs clarification. Was this due to difficulties in transmitting from the site? Or was it that it was not possible to actually film there for other reasons? ✅
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References #3, #4, #5, #6 have the same title. This I find rather confusing - it would be better to put the relevant K point into the citation title. ✅
 * Otherwise references check out, no evidence of OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Although K-120 is wiki-linked, I feel that some brief explanation should be inserted as the linked article is not really very clear to those unfamiliar with the sport. ✅
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * No images used
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for the above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, good to go now. I am happy to list this now. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, good to go now. I am happy to list this now. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)