Talk:Vildanden (airline)/GA1

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

Reviewer: warrior  4321   14:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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:

Prose

 *  it flies to Bergen and Stavanger a Jetstream 32 and a ATR 42, wet leased from Danish Air Transport (DAT) and Helitrans.


 * Vildanden flies to Bergen and Stavanger using a Jetstream 32 and ATR 42 which are wet leased from the Danish Air Transport (DAT) and Helitrans.

Images
File:Vildanden 340.png has image sourcing issues. Please upload an alternative image or fix the sourcing issues with the current image.

Overall, the article is a great read and well written. Please fix these issues, and the article should be passed soon. Thanks -- warrior  4321   14:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment from another editor.

WP:V states "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." If there are no English-language sources for the info, then the Norwegian refs are OK. Arsenikk, have you looked for English sources on the material? Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review. The prose thing has been fixed up. Regarding the Norwegian sources, please see the note from Hamiltonstone above: this is a local airline with, as far as I have able to see, no coverage from English-language sources at all. Nearly all the information here is referenced from the two local newspapers Varden and Telemarksavisa (supplemented by the county office of the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation). Almost all the information here is not even available in national newspapers, and I don't think anything has reached an international audience. I always use English sources instead of Norwegian ones when they are available. Think of it this way: this article is the most comprehensive text available anywere in the world about Vildanden in a non-Norwegian language. That is the beauty of Wikipedia :)
 * As for File:Vildanden 340.png, I do not understand what is wrong with the licensing. It is uploaded by User:KS-U92 on the Commons, stating "own work" and licensing it under GDFL and CC-BY-AS-3.0, which he, as photographer, is fully in his right to do. Arsenikk (talk)  09:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: the image is up for deletion; in the "source" section, it says "own work". Airplaneman   ✈  22:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That nomination was initiated by Warrior4321, that is why I am asking him for the rationale. "Own work" is what it is supposed to say if you take the image yourself and upload it, see for instance my last upload (File:Cockpit of 737-300 LN-KKU.jpg). Also, we cannot delete Commons images on Wikipedia; they have to be deleted there. Arsenikk (talk)  08:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the deletion nomination since it is moot on wikipedia. However I do not understand the rationale for wanting the image deleted. There is a perfectly fine source and the uploader seems to be a editor in good standing on commons. The image is fine. Rettetast (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I have passed the article.