Talk:Balbergbakken

Balbergbakken has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 2, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Skiing and Snowboarding Low‑importance

	Sports portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of skiing and snowboarding articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Skiing and SnowboardingWikipedia:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingTemplate:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingSkiing and Snowboarding articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Event Venues (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Event VenuesWikipedia:WikiProject Event VenuesTemplate:WikiProject Event VenuesEvent Venues articles

Norway

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Balbergbakken/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

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):
I made a number of copy-edits for style and clarity.[1] This really should have been done before nomination.

The lead mentions "bad television images" as a reason for the venue not being used for the Winter Olympics, but this is not given as a reason in the article body. Also the phrase "bad television images" needs clarification. Was this due to difficulties in transmitting from the site? Or was it that it was not possible to actually film there for other reasons? Done
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~References #3, #4, #5, #6 have the same title. This I find rather confusing - it would be better to put the relevant K point into the citation title.~~ Done

Otherwise references check out, no evidence of OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~Although K-120 is wiki-linked, I feel that some brief explanation should be inserted as the linked article is not really very clear to those unfamiliar with the sport.~~ Done
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
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):
No images used
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for the above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good to go now. I am happy to list this now. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've added the K-lengths to the Ministry of Culture links, even though I'm no big fan of "inventing" page names. I've removed the bit about television images—it seems to be an unreferenced sentence from the Norwegian Wikipedia article, but none of the sources I have found mention this explicitly. I've tried to explain K-120 somewhat better. Sorry about the lack of grammar. I'm not quite sure why there were so many errors in this article; I always do an extra check for two before nominations—perhaps I just had a bad day. This sort of fine-tuning is also probably the Achilles heel of my Wikipedia contributions. The copyedit is most appreciated. All should have been seen to now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]