Talk:Port of Skagen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Denmark (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark 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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ports (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ports 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. WikiProject icon
 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.
 

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Krimuk90 (talk · contribs) 06:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Will review in the next couple of days. -- KRIMUK90  06:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead
  • Consider wikilinking and expanding the Danish currency krone on its first occurrence.
  • " The harbour is currently being adapted to accommodate large international cruise ships". Please put "as of [year]" instead of "currently".
Description
  • No in-line citation for the part beginning with "The harbour consists of three main basins (docks with water levels controlled by flood gates): Ydre Forhavnsbassin..."
History
  • In the first sentence of this section, it is unclear what the proposal was all about.
Fishing
  • Wikilink herring, whiting and plaice.
References
  • Web ref. 2 is not formatted correctly.

@Dr. Blofeld: Happy to support when these comments have been addressed. :) -- KRIMUK90  09:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the review! All addressed I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: -- KRIMUK90  09:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)