Talk:Forskningsparken station/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * 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:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Sorry for the late reply—I've been away on a short holiday. I have adressed all the issues except the noise shields. Despite looking for it, I could not find any news on either construction or non-constructions. I would presume it was built, but I cannot be 100% sure. I am not quite sure how to formulate this without leaving the reader with a question, and not knowing the answer myself. I still find it important to include since the matter was the main objection to building the station. Arsenikk (talk)  22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Sorry for the late reply—I've been away on a short holiday. I have adressed all the issues except the noise shields. Despite looking for it, I could not find any news on either construction or non-constructions. I would presume it was built, but I cannot be 100% sure. I am not quite sure how to formulate this without leaving the reader with a question, and not knowing the answer myself. I still find it important to include since the matter was the main objection to building the station. Arsenikk (talk)  22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Sorry for the late reply—I've been away on a short holiday. I have adressed all the issues except the noise shields. Despite looking for it, I could not find any news on either construction or non-constructions. I would presume it was built, but I cannot be 100% sure. I am not quite sure how to formulate this without leaving the reader with a question, and not knowing the answer myself. I still find it important to include since the matter was the main objection to building the station. Arsenikk (talk)  22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply—I've been away on a short holiday. I have adressed all the issues except the noise shields. Despite looking for it, I could not find any news on either construction or non-constructions. I would presume it was built, but I cannot be 100% sure. I am not quite sure how to formulate this without leaving the reader with a question, and not knowing the answer myself. I still find it important to include since the matter was the main objection to building the station. Arsenikk (talk)  22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well-done. Article passed. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)