From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary notes
  • Lead
  • Construction
    • " For the Lillehammer bid for the 1992 Winter Olympics, the International Olympic Committee had not specified that it was necessary with an indoor speed skating rink. Looks off. Can you word this clearer? Was the venue in question or the bid?
      • Hope it is slightly clearer now. Arsenikk (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • "Hamar stadion" Should that article be "Hamar Stadion" or at least be referred to as such in this article?
    • "The site of a bird reserve, a compromise was reached whereby the stadium was moved 50 meters (160 ft) from its original location, two birdwatching towers were built, and a lumber yard was moved." I would go with something along the lines of "Since it was...". Same with the next line "Nature and Youth". Maybe: "The group..." The wording used is clear enough and will not impact this GA, but I wanted to mention it.
    • For the cost figures, should NOK be wikilinked within the body of the article or is there a symbol that can be used? Also consider conversions.
      • Ups, I "always" stick the wikilink into the lead, but I guess I forgot here. Consensus at my last FL that conversion was unfeasible.
  • Facilities
    • Consider breaking up the first paragraph.
    • Consider adding a "Transport" section to handle the information in the second paragraph and other itransport related details that might be available. This is a common section in higher quality articles in the topic area.
      • I've added a section under doubt, as it seems rather short, but there is something to say at least. Arsenikk (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Rink records and World records
    • I believe that it would be better if these were somehow merged into a single section ("Records").
  • Images
    • All of the licensing checks out
    • Some editors will object to the first image being on the left and sandwhiching the text with the infobox. Arsenikk (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I can move it down a paragraph, but in general by the time the screen width is so narrow the sandwhiching is causing a problem, the image should be located below the infobox.
  • Linking
    • Although it adds a little bit too much blue in some sections, your wikilinking was good. It helped me with a couple items and I am sure there are others that it will be useful with. You have assisted in building the web but not gone overboard.
    • You will need to trim some of the red links
      • My goal here is to actually create the articles. I am semi-systematically working through 1994 Olympics-related articles, and creating an article for each event is on the list, for instance. The only link I'm uncertain about is Fireguard. Anyway, there are millions of articles which still need to be created on Wikipedia, and I like to do a somewhat thorough job when I create one (particularly regarding refs), which makes it a somewhat slow process. Arsenikk (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Dablinks

  • The good (there is plenty of it)
    • Nice work with the conversions.
    • Adding information on the lighting was cool
    • Followd MoS with sourcing not being needed in the lead with that particular info
    • Nice work with the tables being sortable.
    • Loks like all dashes are good (I'll run a script to double check)
    • Refs look like the formatting is consistent and correct
    • Dead links checks out

  • Overall impression
    • I think you have hit many of the needed benchmarks for a GA. However, I believe it will not be sufficient as is to go to an FA nom. After addressing the concerns above, I suggest tinkering around with some of the sections and expanding the content.

Cptnono (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for taking the time to review the article, and give it a thorough job too. Everything should have been seen to now. Arsenikk (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. Thank you for the clarification on the translation and cap thing. Good luck with the red links. Sounds like a big project. I still believe the records should be consolidate into one section but that might just be my preference. I could throw the template up here but you know what is good. The benchmarks are clearly met. I hope that you will tinker around and go even higher on the quality scale through a peer review. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)