Talk:.no

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norway High‑importance

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

.no has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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.

.no is part of the Norid series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 15, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
November 14, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Year of establishment

I don't think it is correct that this domain was established in 1987, it was the first country level domain alongside .uk, and managed by Jens Thomassen until Uninett took over in 1987. The article for .uk says it was established in 1985, which makes sense according to the schedule specified in RFC 921. Kjetilho 02:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Uninett.png

Image:Uninett.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:.no/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 19:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The prose is generally very good. I will list the most problematic phrases

"Registrars much comply to a certain level of technical and administrative resources, must pay an annual fee of NOK 5,000 and a deposit of minimum NOK 10,000, depending on activity level." and "Registrars much also undertake a minimum activity of either administrating or registering forty domains per year.[16][17]" are confusing. Perhaps "much" should be changed to "must"
- Yes, much should be must. Odd I did the same goof twice in a row. Hope they read better now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and a further five domains directly under each of the second-level domains.[22]" - As far as I know domains is not a verb, so I don't fully understand this phrase. If you left out the a it would make sense
- Rephrased; hope it reads better. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your changes. I will promote this article to GA-status. Excellent article that is close to meeting FA-status. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was slow in doing my own read-through of this article. So, despite its confirmed good article status, I made changes that I think it needed. A spelling fix, and one or two word-changes that make the English read more naturally to me. I asked for clarification when the addition of 23 characters was mentioned in the history section, because I'm nervous of making statements about the Norwegian language, of which I know next to nothing. Perhaps you could clarify that by stating the 23 characters permittied, Arsenikk. Once again, thanks for your hard work on this article. —fudoreaper (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have specified somewhat to indicate that all the Sami and Norwegian letters were introduced then. The 23 specific characters are listed under the policy section, and repeating those are in my opinion superfluous. Thanks for the comments, Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, I like what you did there. I did notice you referencing the full permitted character set in the Policy section, which seems the right place for it. The additional characters may be evident to a Norwegian, but an English person, adding characters to an alphabet could be quite confusing--what characters were added? So yes, your recent change is quite good, no need to list them, but to describe them as Norwegian and Sami language characters clarifies where these extra characters would come from. Thanks for your improvement, it looks great.

I took the liberty of linking the languages in the history section, especially Norwegian and Sami will be unfamiliar topics to the majority of English readers, I don't think it's too much linking. Cheers. —fudoreaper (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]