Talk:.sj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article .sj has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star .sj is part of the Norid series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 25, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
November 14, 2012 Good topic candidate Promoted
Did You Know
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Internet (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Norway (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Arctic (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Isn't in use[edit]

It really isn't in use, for any reason... at least it wasn't when I looked into it :) +sj + 10:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Uninett.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Uninett.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:.sj/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Toolbox

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I made a few minor copy-edits.[1]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    references check out, I assume good faith for those where my Norwegian isn't up to scratch.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    It says all that needs to be said
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, short and sweet. I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Arsenikk (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)