Talk:Skarnsund Bridge/GA1

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


 * Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments
A reasonable, short article on a bridge, at or about GA level.

Comments:
 * History-
 * The fatal accident needs a citation.
 * The loss of the ferry jobs needs a citation.
 * Ref 8 has a broken link.


 * WP:lead and History-
 * I'm not sure about your translation of the word 'Preserve' as in 'bridge was preserved as a cultural heritage'. I can't find the original Norsk citation; Ref 11 which is listed as Norwegian is mostly an English summary (I much prefer English). Could 'listed' be a better translation?

Pyrotec (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Arsenikk has not been here for a couple of weeks so I'll try to help here. I have not addressed all your points now, but I'll come back. I have updated ref 11. The source refer a proposal and not the actual decision. I have added a ref to the legislation that protects the bridge. Preserved. I agree that this not seem to be a good word for the Norwegian word fredning. I think a better word is protected. Rettetast (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping out. Sorry, I have a Englisk-Norsk / Norsk-Englisk dictionary, which I'm happy to use for one or two words, but I can't cope with whole articles in Norsk. Arsenikk now seems to have been gone for three weeks, so I've taken over one of his outstanding railway reviews.Pyrotec (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have tried to find sources, but have not had any luck. the facts probably comes from offline sources. I have removed them for now. They can be readded later if sources are added. Rettetast (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your assistance. I will now continue the WP:GAN.Pyrotec (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

summary
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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Thanks are due to Rettetast for assisting due to the extended absence of the nominator. I'm awarding GA-status to the article.Pyrotec (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)