Talk:Bergen Air Transport/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- I made some copy-edits for grammar and style. The prose is now reasonable but could do with improvement.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- I found 4 dead links using WP:CHECKLINKS. It looks like telen.no have re-organised their site. I found 3 of the links with new URLS (refs #4, 5, 6),
but a site search didn't find the 4th (ref #7)[1], and there is nothing in the Internet Archive.
- I found 4 dead links using WP:CHECKLINKS. It looks like telen.no have re-organised their site. I found 3 of the links with new URLS (refs #4, 5, 6),
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
OK just one reference link to be fixed. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Done
- Pass/Fail:
- Thank you for the review. I hate linkrot, which is crippling good referencing on Wikipedia, and have chosen to remove the not so important fact of the 2002 ridership figures from the article, so the article complies with WP:V. Arsenikk (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree about linkrot, I am looking to use {http://www.webcitation.org/} in future. The article is fine now., so I am passing as GA. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)