Talk:Malmö Stadion/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 16:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


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

This is generally a good piece of work.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Well written and organised.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Excellently referenced to reliable sources (note: mostly in Swedish).
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Looks good to me, looks to meet the standard set by the Swedbank Stadion companion article. However, if I were you I would try to involve IFK Malmo a bit more, as the article focuses a lot on Malmo FF; they're the more major team, granted, but perhaps put something about IFK's record crowd there, IFK's averages, etc. This isn't major though and doesn't stop this passing for GA in my book; if you intend to take it to FA, however, I would look at this.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Looks generally good, but again I'd look at perhaps focusing a little more on IFK in future development of the article.
 * 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):
 * Great pictures, I see no problems with licencing. I see alt text is absent; this isn't necessary for GA, but will be if you go to FA; keep this in mind.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Great work! And good luck in improving this further in time. Keep in mind the above comments during future work on this. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Great work! And good luck in improving this further in time. Keep in mind the above comments during future work on this. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)