Jump to content

Talk:Eidsiva Arena/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

[edit]

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.

GA Checklist

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Very strong in this area.
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    All issues have been addressed and I feel that the article meets the GA Criteria. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Lead

[edit]
  • Can you add the sport that the teams listed in the lead play? Since there are several sports played in the hall it would be good to specify what sports these teams play in. I assume hockey from the context but I'm not sure.
  • I don't see anything about the construction of the arena in the lead. This should be added.

Construction

[edit]
  • Some of the writing is a little rough for example: "...in and around Lillehammer to secure that the town was awarded the Olympics..." I would reword: "...in and around Lillehammer to help the town secure the right to host the Olympics."
  • I'm not sure what is meant by this: "The venue was given priority by NIF in grants to promote the Olympic bid." Did the NIF give grants or did the NIF give priority for grants? It doesn't seem clear.
  • "The naming of the arena..." "naming" → "name".
  • "...who was transported across by mountains by skiers during the 13th century..." Not sure this is important information. Your thoughts?
  • Why the red link for Kristin and Håkon? I assume this is to link to the mascots of the 1994 Olympics, I'd remove the link personally since it's red. It doesn't seem necessary.
  • Consider changing "Kristins Hall has had smaller renovated several times..." to "Kristins Hall has had small renovations throughout the years..."
  • There is a link to the Lillehammer bid for the 1992 Games, which they lost, but I don't see a link to the bid for the 1994 Games, which they won. There should be a link to the 1994 bid. Perhaps in the paragraph starting with "After Lillehammer was awarded the 1994 Winter Olympics in 1988..." linking to "awarded". Just a thought. There may be a more intuitive place to put it though.
    • Again, I haven't gotten around to making that article yet. I did a huge bunch of the 1994 Olympics-related article a while ago, but I need a pause for a while before I return. Arsenikk (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities

[edit]
  • It seems like the sprint track should be part of the main sections. No? I'm not sure I've never been there but that seems like it would take up a good chunk of real estate. I'll leave it up to you.

Events

[edit]
  • Can Lillehammer IK and Oshaug be linked? Same with the various handball and curling club teams. Though if it generates all red links then I don't think it'll be helpful.
    • Lillehammer IK is linked in the lead, but I can link it again. The rest of the clubs lack article on the Norwegian Wikipeida (which has a significantly lower inclusion criteria than here) and it is very unlikely that any of them are notable. Arsenikk (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You indicate in the lead that the Hall was used as a practice arena during the Olympics but this isn't mentioned here. It should be if it is brought up in the lead.
  • I'm not sure that Events is the right title for this section. I'm just concerned that one paragraph lists all the clubs while the other discusses events. Perhaps "Use and events" would be a better title or something that would reflect the clubs that use the arena on a regular basis.

References

[edit]
  • Are the articles from the Norwegian news agency online anywhere? Just wondering if they can be linked here or if they are only archived in offline sources.

Overall

[edit]
  • You have a nice little article here. There are some concerns listed above which I will summarize here:
  • Some prose problems. I've outlined most of what I could catch above. Please rectify.
  • I'd like to see how the Hall is supported financially on an ongoing basis. How much does it cost to keep it running? Where does this money come from? Is there information on this?
  • Have there been any other notable events at the hall since 1994? A major hockey Norwegian hockey league championship or an international curling competition? Other than the 2016 Youth Olympics there isn't really any current or future use information.
  • The refs are all credible, I would like to see if the articles can be linked but that isn't a major issue.
  • The images look good, all free use as far as I can tell.
  • The article is stable.
  • At this point I'm going to hold the nomination in the hopes that some work can be done on the writing and perhaps some information can be added to the issues raised above. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for taking the time for the review. I believe I have seen to all the issues. It is nice to see you back again; I was saddened when I saw your former retirement. Arsenikk (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I won't be able to finalize the review now and may not be able to finish it up until Monday but I wanted to say thanks for your thoughts regarding my semi-retirement. I burned out and was confronted with more pressing priorities. But my Wikipedia hunger is back and so here I am. I'm also glad to see that you're angling into Olympics-related content. It will be nice to have someone else doing Olympics-related work that is actually active in article writing and improvement. It seems like so many in the Olympics community here are focused on other (important) ventures. It gets a bit lonely toiling away on article writing so welcome aboard! Perhaps we can join up on the 1994 Winter Olympics at some point? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]