Talk:Copenhagen/GA3

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Folklore1 (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I perform the review, I will update the following table. Please look below the table for my questions and comments. Folklore1 (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See notes about corrections below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See notes about corrections below
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	sufficient coverage of subject
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	appropriate level of detail
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	consistently neutral tone
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no recent edit wars
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	17 Share-Alike 3.0 images, 13 public domain images, 19 Share-Alike 2.0 images, 1 free use attribution image
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	relevant images with appropriate captions
	7. Overall assessment.

Districts[edit]

This section contains two lists of districts: "10 official districts" of "Copenhagen Municipality" and "Districts of Copenhagen". Please explain the difference between the official districts of the municipality and the other districts of Copenhagan. Bear in mind that I have never visited Copenhagan and know little about Europe. Folklore1 (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked Municipalities of Denmark now to clarify the difference with districts and have reworded the latter to neighbourhoods which would be a closer rough equivalent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Folklore1 (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal government[edit]

See the sentence containing "representatives of the council who are given civic duties". Are civic duties actually assigned to the representatives? Or does the sentence need some modification? Folklore1 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a basic overview of the city government, the source states that each representative is given a civic duty to perform and I think the sentences says this, it's very clear I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Folklore1 (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the sentence containing "Enhedslisten - the Red-Green Alliance was". This is unclear. Does the sentence need one or two mdashes, or some other modification? Folklore1 (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One's the Danish name, one's English [1], I've placed in brackets now.21:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the sentence beginning "All members of the council are elected every four years; in". Do you think the text would flow more easily if it was broken into two sentences where the semicolon is currently located? Folklore1 (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make much difference but I've changed to a period.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The accounting firm Deloitte" was responsible in 2013, but how long does the firm's contract last? Will the article need revision next year if a competitor outbids Deloitte? Unless Deloitte has a long, multi-year contract, you may want to revise or delete the sentence identifying Copenhagan's auditors. Folklore1 (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. The source states Deloitte is responsible, that's all that is needed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Law and order[edit]

"The Copenhagen Fire Department" might be a good spot for a paragraph break. (An optional suggestion for improvement, not necessary for GA status.) Folklore1 (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental planning[edit]

"carbon-neutral" or "carbon nuetral"? Please be consistent. Folklore1 (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, done!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See "Copenhagen has been rewarded". Does this mean Copenhagen received some sort of prize? Or should "rewarded" be changed to "recognized" or "praised"? Folklore1 (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to praised. I believe it has won awards but praised does sound better as you say.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

See the sentence beginning with "However, we know". Who is we? Folklore1 (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded.

Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See "about 1.21 million (1,213,822 (2012)) inhabitants". When parentheses bump into each other, the text gets a bit hard to read. (This is an optional cleanup suggestion, not required for GA status.) Folklore1 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded.

Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"increased rather rapidly leading" needs a comma to clarify it meaning. "rather" is unnecessary and can be omitted. Folklore1 (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

The sentence beginning "However as of 1 January 2013, at 61.6%" is confusing. Please reorganize it so that its meaning will be clear. Folklore1 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded slightly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The second most important" should probably be "second most significant" or "second largest". Folklore1 (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to significant.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transport[edit]

I removed the reference titled "November - KÃ¸benhavns Lufthavne". It linked to a web page that did not support the October 2013 record of 2.2 million passengers. However, there was another reference at the end of the paragraph which supported this statistic. So the bad reference does not need to be replaced and this repair is Done Folklore1 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

When I clicked on the link for "Ørestad Gymnasium Best Building in Scandinavia 2008", I got an errors message labeled "oops". Folklore1 (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What ref no. was that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the sentence in question as well as the reference. The original site, Forum AID, no longer exists and there have been no further awards since 2009. Even the Design site which was quoted is no longer reliable.--Ipigott (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Folklore1 (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference citing "Vi vil forbedre københavnernes sundhed" has a dead link.

Done New link.--Ipigott (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need this to verify the sentence in Healthcare: "The city has targets to encourage people to exercise regularly and to reduce the number who smoke and consume alcohol." Does the target actually call for reduction in the number of people who drink alcohol, or a reduction in alcohol consumption? Folklore1 (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says reduce the number doesn't it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Must we really do this one point every day? It's getting rather tedious. Why not just complete the review when you have a moment and then let us attend to it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am performing the review as I find time and recording my observations as I do so. You are welcome to respond to my notes as I write them, or wait until I am finished. At the end of the process, I will start the customary 7-day hold period, but I will extend the hold if requested. If everything in my notes has been resolved by the time I finish my review, we can simply go straight to a GA approval. Folklore1 (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to put it on hold. Why would you do that? We'll happily address your points, but please do try to be a bit more efficient with this.. I don't mind you taking your time with it, but I'd prefer to address in stages. I'm sure we're both busy and would prefer to edit in stages rather than one point every day over a longer period.. Thanks. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just wait until there are enough comments for you to edit? The reviewer is kind enough to post points, who cares at what intervals they post them. You choose when you address the points. So again, if you prefer to address in stages, do so, that has nothing to do with the reviewer. Mattximus (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't look as if there's much alternative... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links[edit]

Three references have dead links. I have attached tags to identify them in the References section. Folklore1 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the article "on hold" for seven days to allow time to repair the three dead links (which I have tagged) or replace the references. Except for the tagged references, I think the article is ready for GA status. If more time is needed, please let me know. Folklore1 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the dead links and also for your other useful comments on the article. I think everything is in order now.--Ipigott (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]