Talk:Skarnsund Bridge/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

A reasonable, short article on a bridge, at or about GA level.

Comments:

• History-

• The fatal accident needs a citation.
• The loss of the ferry jobs needs a citation.
• Ref 8 has a broken link.

• WP:lead and History-

• I'm not sure about your translation of the word 'Preserve' as in 'bridge was preserved as a cultural heritage'. I can't find the original Norsk citation; Ref 11 which is listed as Norwegian is mostly an English summary (I much prefer English). Could 'listed' be a better translation?

Pyrotec (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Arsenikk has not been here for a couple of weeks so I'll try to help here. I have not addressed all your points now, but I'll come back. I have updated ref 11. The source refer a proposal and not the actual decision. I have added a ref to the legislation that protects the bridge. Preserved. I agree that this not seem to be a good word for the Norwegian word fredning. I think a better word is protected. Rettetast (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. Sorry, I have a Englisk-Norsk / Norsk-Englisk dictionary, which I'm happy to use for one or two words, but I can't cope with whole articles in Norsk. Arsenikk now seems to have been gone for three weeks, so I've taken over one of his outstanding railway reviews.Pyrotec (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to find sources, but have not had any luck. the facts probably comes from offline sources. I have removed them for now. They can be readded later if sources are added. Rettetast (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your assistance. I will now continue the WP:GAN.Pyrotec (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

summary

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:

   Most are in Norsk, but with my limited linguistics skills they appear to confirm what is being stated

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Most are in Norsk, but with my limited linguistics skills they appear to confirm what is being stated

   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:

Thanks are due to Rettetast for assisting due to the extended absence of the nominator. I'm awarding GA-status to the article.Pyrotec (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)