Talk:Halvdan Koht

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Halvdan Koht has been listed as one of the History 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.
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 Biography / Politics and Government (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Low-importance).


I removed the reference to him nominating Stalin for the Nobel Peace price. Koht nominated Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin (and also Eden and Litvinov) for their efforts to end WWII. They were "the Big Three" of the Allies of the war. Mentioning just Stalin and not the others is not informative. -- Hans johns1 (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Frå skanse til skanse[edit]

Is the book Frå skanse til skanse too controversial to be used as a source here? Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Koht's books should be treated as primary sources on Koht himself and on events where he was involved. As such they may be used as sources, but only with care. I do not know whether Frå skanse til skanse is more controversial than other of his books. Oceanh (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
On further consideration I agree that parts of this book are not objective accounts of the events. In particular actions of the Minstry for Foreign Affairs the last days prior to the German invasion. Oceanh (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit[edit]

As requested, I have copy-edited the article, tweaking phrasing and standardizing the spelling as US English. Permit me to congratulate the authors on an impressive achievement. My sole quibble is that someone called "Phillips" appears alongside Chamberlain and Halifax with no explanation of who he was. Tim riley (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Gan nomination[edit]

This article was nominated with outstanding citation needed tags. Ideally these should be sorted before nomination. As it is they could be grounds for a quickfail. I would suggest addressing these tags as soon as possible. AIRcorn (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed by Geschichte (talk · contribs). AIRcorn (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Halvdan Koht/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 21:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

  • Prose: I know you're an experienced editor, Geschichte, but your English throughout is slightly off. Alongside straightforward errors such as a minor subject until 1895,[10] The main throughout there is evidence of the writer of the article having learned English, I guess, as a second language. Examples include had the son Joachim and and his father was again mayor as well as parliamentarian. For this reason I suggest you enlist the help of the Guild (requests). This may take time, which I'm happy do do, but in the meantime I have other concerns.
  • Hm, I know. It has been copyedited before (see talk), but may need a CE again, I don't know. Geschichte (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Lead is rather long, for what is not a particularly long article. Consider consolidating it.
  • Layout generally good; one or two particularly long paragraphs that should be avoided.
  • Sourcing A major source is the Norsk biografisk leksikon which is apparently a Norwegian encyclopedia. Why is it a reliable source? Our article on the online version says that " Kunnskapsforlaget is currently searching for 1,000 experts who can make sure that the user-generated content is accurate".

All for now, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Norsk biografisk leksikon was printed 5-10 years ago and is now published by the online encyclopedia, together with the contents of another old paper encyclopedia, Store norske leksikon. It's SNL that they're searching for editors for, the contents of NBL will remained untouched, and thus the same as when the encyclopedia was printed. Geschichte (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you like me to give the article another look? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I assumed you did want me to. I'm away for the next week, but in the meantime I've gone right through the article and highlighted clarifications, {{who}}s, and citations needed. Once these have been fixed, the article should be able to be passed on my return. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)