Login
Login

Talk:Kanthaugen Freestyle Arena/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

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

Reviewer: Grondemar (talk · contribs) 19:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

{{Working}} Will post the review shortly. –Grondemar 19:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is very close to meeting the Good Article criteria; I have only a couple of minor concerns:

  • What is Kanthaugen? Is it a village, a mountain, or something else. It's a little unclear from the text.
  • "At the time of the closing, it was suggested reopened as part of a controversial proposal to build a tobogganing slide from Kanthaugen to Stampesletta." Passive voice: who is suggesting that the ski lift be reopened?

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

  1. It is reasonably well written.
  2. :a (prose): {{GAList/check|hold}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|y}}
  3. ::
  4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
  5. :a (references): {{GAList/check|y}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|y}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|y}}
  6. ::
  7. It is broad in its coverage.
  8. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|hold}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|y}}
  9. ::
  10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  11. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
  12. ::
  13. It is stable.
  14. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}
  15. ::
  16. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
  17. :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|y}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|y}}
  18. ::
  19. Overall:
  20. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|hold}}
  21. :: This review is being placed {{icon|GAH}} on hold for a minimum of seven days to allow the above concerns to be addressed.

Thanks. –Grondemar 20:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks for the review. I've amended the two sentences per your concerns. Arsenikk (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

::Looks good, thanks for addressing my concerns. I shall now {{icon|GA}} pass this good article nomination. Congratulations! –Grondemar 01:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)