Talk:Leif Tronstad/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * To get it up to GA standards, I have done the following:
 * One-sentence paragraphs are not really a good thing, and starting the whole article off with one does not make it any better.
 * For biographies, flagicons should only be used to establish nationality, per Manual of Style (icons). The overuse of flags drowns the infobox, creating confusion in the mind of the reader.
 * Try to rearrange sentences so that the same word does not appear twice in a row, in two following sentences.
 * 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:
 * A small copyedit was all that was needed to pass the GA criteria. Congratulations! Arsenikk (talk)  15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A small copyedit was all that was needed to pass the GA criteria. Congratulations! Arsenikk (talk)  15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A small copyedit was all that was needed to pass the GA criteria. Congratulations! Arsenikk (talk)  15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)