Talk:Skagen/GA1

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

Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 08:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up; should have some solid comments in a day or so, but one thing that springs to the eye is that there is some overlinking here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to reduce this today. Is it OK though if we also keep the names linked in the Skagen painters section as I think it's more convenient to link them than not. I've delinked most of the others though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think so: it makes more sense to be able to link from a specialist section, rather than have to hunt back up the page. Frederikshavn seems to be linked three or four times, so may be worth a look, but I think you've caught most of them. - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it's been a bit of a slow start, but a few points to think on:


 * What version of English is this? Color and jeweler versus centre and harbour: I don't mind which version, but it needs consistency throughout
 * I'd rather English, but I noticed Ipigott had been using harbor so I figured he was using American English, which I generally tend to use I must admit, given that Americans form the majority on here and it is an American website. Ian any preference?♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Double image at the top - bad sandwiching of the text here.
 * "In 1644, Swedish troops occupied the town during the Torstenson War.[3]" I think we need a bit more here in the way of context: why, for how long, etc. not too much, but just a line or so extra.


 * Was trying to keep to British English. The irritating automatic spell checker on IE probably changed harbour to harbor (as it is trying to do now!)--Ipigott (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Done to the end of the painters: more to follow soon. - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Full review (finally!)

There's a new "Today" section which has a few issues in it: the first paragraph is unsourced, the dates are of an inconsistent format and some of the language is unencyclopaedic, "as celebrities conquer Skagen" conquer? Other parts need re-writing: "As in other outskirts of Denmark" is not good. I'm also not sure of the wisdom of splitting it away from the 20th century: the previous section of "20th century-present" was fine, as "Today" is slightly misleading.


 * ✅ --Ipigott (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Geography
 * There's a lot of white space here
 * ✅ --Rosiestep (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Economy
 * "Skagen's economy has been based on its fishing industry which continues to prosper today, thanks to its fishing harbour": I think it's probably "thanks to" fishermen and market conditions, but helped or facilitated by the harbour.
 * ✅ --Rosiestep (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "However" isn't needed; this sentence also works backwards: starts off with "today", and then works back to the 1960s – could do with a bit of a tweak.
 * ✅ --Ipigott (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Skagen Town and Regional Museum
 * Duch windmill or Dutch windmill
 * ✅ --Rosiestep (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Refs & Bibliography
 * I think publishing years are probably better than specific days.
 * ✅ --Rosiestep (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Capitalisation needs sorting out on one or two books.
 * ✅ --Rosiestep (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You should go for consistency in whether you have full biblio and the shortened refs which link down to them, or whether you have the full book details in the refs section (I think there are seven books listed in the refs).
 * ✅ --Rosiestep (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite: FN 15 is still wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Now ref 13, ✅♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * FNs21 and 26: you need to finish off the page ranges.
 * ✅ --Rosiestep (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Reads pretty well, with only a little polishing needed. Review on hold until the above is sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * All good. Passes all the criteria as currently listed at GAN. Well done to all concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)