Jump to content

Talk:Architecture of Norway/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Deleting line

I'm deleting the line which says that Architecture in Norway is "over 9000" years old. Since it is not backed up by a citiation there is a good chance that it is a reference to the internet meme, and popular way of vandalizing pages "over 9000". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.61.205 (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Featured Article try?

Since the last featured article nomination, we have made lots of improvements to this article. What does everyone think about renominating it? --Leifern 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Are all the external links necessary?
  • The picture Loft in Setesdal doesn't fit in the lead and should perhaps be removed. Or perhaps moved to the section Vernacular architecture.
  • It's out of context though. The lead doesn't meantion any lofts, how are people unfamiliar with the subject supposed to understand its purpose? Another concern is that it looks bad in juxtaposition with the Regional-arch template and the table of contents. Preferably, a text body should not be squeezed inbetween two boxes. Punkmorten 07:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The article says that "Hence, Renaissance architecture is almost non-existent in Norway" whereas the next paragraph describes examples of Renaissance architecture. Fix this contradiction please.

While/whilst

The WP entry on Whilst suggests its use has been deprecated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.173.211.190 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Sverre Fehn

It is curious to read an article about the architecture of Norway without even one mention to Sverre Fehn, probably the best-known Norwegian architect of all times (at least outside Norway), and the only one to ever be awarded the Pritzker Prize, considered to be the highest prize an architect can receive.

May I suggest that some information about him or at least some link is included in the article? 85.52.162.4 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Leifern (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Although a very interesting article, I think you will have a problem with references when this is reviewed.--andreasegde (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? There are 40 inline citations, 8 books in the bibliography, 12 external websites that should count as reliable sources.--Leifern (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, here we go (references needed)...

  • The 'History' section has none at all.
  • "possibly based on improvements on the prehistoric long houses that had roof-bearing posts dug into the ground". Reference needed.
  • "As the political power in Norway was consolidated and had to contend with external threats, larger structures were built in accordance with military technology at the time. [Reference needed] Fortresses, bridges, and ultimately churches and manors were built with stone and masonry. These structures followed the European styles of their time". Reference needed.
  • "though a large number were documented and recorded by measured drawings before they were demolished". Reference needed.
  • "The stave churches owe their longevity..." None at all for this paragraph.
  • "Later churches were influenced by Continental architecture. Examples include the churches... - notably the church at Trondenes in Troms". Reference needed.
  • "Norway as a backward province to be exploited,[1] but..." Reference needs to be formatted properly.
  • "Hence, ambitious Renaissance architecture is unusual in Norway compared to other European countries". Reference needed.

I don't want to go on, but you should look at all the paragraphs. It's not enough (these days) to just put an ISBN number in, you have to put in page numbers from the various books, as well as formatting the external references properly. :) --andreasegde (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have had experience with the new stance on GA articles, I would politely suggest that you get to work (it's a boring referencing life, but someone's got to do it) and not complain, or ask for clarification/discussion. I know it's hard, but GAs are getting harder by the day to achieve. I wish you the best. :)--andreasegde (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the input. And I'll remember to never complain, or ask for clarification or discussion, because I guess there are far greater intellects at work than mine here, and I should just know my place. --Leifern (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Hello, I am Thelb4, and I am reviewing this article. One thing that's very clear to me before the article can be even a good article is that the images need to be sorted out, and maybe with some removed. I suggest a thorough reading of the Images section of the Manual of Style. Thelb4 06:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Other suggestions I have are:
  • Consider splitting the 'Neo-classicism' section into its own article, leaving a few paragraphs (roughly the size of the Stave Church section) as well as a link to the main article. Also consider doing this for 'Romanticism and historicism'.
  • The TOC is too long. Consider merging some sections together.
I'll put the review on hold and give you a few days to sort it out; I may be back later with some more suggestions. Thelb4 07:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this - as you'll see I've made quite a few changes in the images - deleted some, changed the formating for virtually all. I also shortened the sections you mentioned a bit, though perhaps not as much as you would have liked. I have also changed the depth of the TOC using {{TOClimit|limit=3}}, which makes it more manageable. --Leifern (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Passed

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a very good article, and I think it could be a featured article with a little bit more work.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Although this isn't really a subject which one can be biased about, unless one is being critical of architecture.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
    This article is full of lovely images, that brings it to life.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Thank you! I will make further changes to move it along toward FA status. I appreciate your time and effort. --Leifern (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Architecture of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Architecture of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Architecture of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Architecture_of_Norway/Archive_1&oldid=1170086795"