Talk:Svalbard and Jan Mayen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Svalbard and Jan Mayen has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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.
November 7, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
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.
 

Need page[edit]

page is needed for the incoming redirect from ISO 3166-1:SJ

I put a tribute to these places here after having visited them. if it's inapropriate feel free to discuss it on my talk page on http://www.wikitravel.org - The Snackmaster (Check out my excellent guides and give feedback) "Let's all grow together" - Who was it???
Thanks for editing, but it's important that edits are sourced and neutral, and yours have an opinion and no sources. But please read WP:5P and keep editing! Snoutwood (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries[edit]

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:28 (UTC)

Top-level domain .sj[edit]

Please add something about .sj. Thanks. --91.138.4.97 11:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Since added. -- Beland (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:26, 7 November 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 one minor copy-edit.[2]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    All references appear reliable and check out.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Thorough, broad and focussed.
  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):
    On image used, tagged and captioned
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Fine, I find no problems with this artcile. Happy to pass as GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review the article :) Arsenikk (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)