Login
Login

Talk:Dælenenga idrettspark/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Dælenenga idrettspark/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Dælenenga idrettspark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs) 12:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I shall review.

;Infobox

;Lead

;History

  • Seems good, contains good information, references fine.

;Facilities

  • Yep, good. "Ruter" may need explaining, but not required.

;Events

  • The information included there is fine. The three tables are correctly formatted and are used correctly.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  2. :A. Prose quality: {{GAList/check|y}}
  3. ::
  4. :B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: {{GAList/check|y}}
  5. ::
  6. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
  7. :A. References to sources: {{GAList/check|y}}
  8. ::
  9. :B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: {{GAList/check|y}}
  10. ::
  11. :C. No original research: {{GAList/check|y}}
  12. ::
  13. Is it broad in its coverage?
  14. :A. Major aspects: {{GAList/check|y}}
  15. ::
  16. :B. Focused: {{GAList/check|y}}
  17. ::
  18. Is it neutral?
  19. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
  20. ::
  21. Is it stable?
  22. : No edit wars, etc: {{GAList/check|y}}
  23. ::
  24. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
  25. :A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: {{GAList/check|y}}
  26. ::
  27. :B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: {{GAList/check|y}}
  28. ::
  29. Overall:
  30. :Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
  31. ::

Pass. ⇒TAP 12:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

:Thank for taking the time for both this and the other review. Arsenikk (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)