Talk:Lillehammer Olympiapark/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 20:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Arsenikk's been gone a while, but if you ping me when you review this I'll address the concerns best I can. Wizardman 00:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Wizardman. Sorry, I've been away as well and I see that you have closed another "hanging" review of mine. I'll make a start on this one tonight. I don't usually have any major problems with Arsenikk's nominations, and I'd not noticed that he was gone (but then again I've not looked). Thanks for the offer to address the concerns and for cleaning up the other review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've now done a quick initial read of this article from start-to-finish, and I've done a few minor tweakes to the grammar (and added a wikilink) on the way, but I've not checked any references or citations. On this basis, the nomination is clearly not a "quick fail" and it appears to be at or about GA-level.

I'm now going to review the article in more depth, starting at the History and finishing with the WP:Lead. This will take another day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * History -
 * Looks OK.


 * Operations -
 * Looks OK.


 * Venues & Lead -
 * These two sections look OK.

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria An informative, well referenced and well illustrated article.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on getting this article up to the necessary standard. Pyrotec (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)