Talk:CC Amfi/GA1

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

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 02:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * General
 * Images are good
 * Though it is not required for GA status, Alternative text for the images is preferred
 * Sources look good
 * No concern with close paraphrasing, given nearly all links are in Norwegian


 * Lead
 * "Other mayor events held at..." - Typo? I presume that is supposed to be "major"?
 * . Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As a general complaint, I've never really cared for listing one-off events as being tenants in the infobox. I won't suggest removal, just sharing a personal opinion.


 * Construction
 * Link Storhamar IL on first use
 * . Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "...but a research project coordinated by the Norwegian Institute of Technology make it possible to build the venue in wood." - Awkward statement. I assume that should just be "made it possible".  It also makes me curious.  Is the arena completely made of wood? If so, is that unusual in Norway?
 * . Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Facilities
 * "...Unlike Lillehammer and Gjøvik, Hamar only uses the interest and not of the capital of their funds..." - Also a bit awkward. Perhaps just strike "of"?  "Hamar uses only the interest, not the capital, of their funds [to cover any deficit]"?
 * . Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "...75 meters (246 ft) wise ..." - Typo. Should be "wide"
 * . Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "The venue has an official ice hockey spectator capacity for 6,091 spectators," - No need to say "spectators" twice. I would just remove the first use:  "The venue has an official ice hockey capacity for 6,091 spectators"
 * . Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "During the 1994 Winter Olympics, Hamar Olympic Amphitheatre was used for figure skating and short track speed skating. It hosted 13 events, drawing an average of 5,554 spectators.[27] During the Olympics, Storhamar Ishall was used for warming up and training." - Second use of "During the Olympics" is redundant.
 * . Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Events
 * I am not sure that the Nancy Kerrigan/Tonya Harding incident is particularly relevant to this article
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Maybe not the most relevant fact, but it's only half a sentence. Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In the Ice hockey section, your uses of "Dragon's" should either be Dragons if speaking of the team in general, or Dragons'  if referring to something the team possesses. i.e.: The Dragons' highest average... and The Dragons have played....
 * . Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A well written article overall. There are a few typos and a couple places where the wording is awkward, but you have touched on everything I would expect to see in an article about such a facility. I am placing this nomination on hold to give time to address the minor issues above. Regards, Resolute 02:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall
 * Thank you very much for the review. I am traveling in the Middle East as we speak (or should that be "write") and have very little time and access to the Internet. I will be back at home on 5 April and with your consent would be more than happy to take a thorough look at the comments and amend them at that time. I fear that at this time I do not have the time to do a thorough enough read-through to fix the issues, even if they are not the largest. Arsenikk (talk)  07:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix the issues. Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I am now passing the article. Congrats to you both! Resolute 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)