Talk:Holmenkollbakken/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 18:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've had a quick read of the article, but I've not checked any of the references or citations. On this basis, the body of the article appears to be at or about the right level for award of GA, but I doubt that the WP:Lead in it current state is compliant with WP:WIAGA. As the body of the appears to have a reasonable chance of "passing", I'm going to review the article in more depth, starting with the History section and finishing with the Lead. This is likely to take another day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History -
- Original hill -

In the first paragraph it might be useful to give the English translations of Husebyrennet and Husebybakken, as they seem to be the same root-word with just a different ending, ie. -rennet and - bakken. Otherwise, this paragraph is OK.
I slightly improved the grammar in places, but I regard the rest of this subsection as OK.

- Olympic hill -

This subsection is OK.

- New hill -

The third paragraph has a {{citation needed}} flag going back to March 2011, that pre-dates the nomination of this article at WP:GAN.
The third paragraph is rather unclear on what the demolition work involved. From the article, the hill was natural and structures have been added to this hill and excavation / blasting work had previously been carried out at the foot of the hill. Was that natural hill removed in its entirety, or is this statement referring just to structures built on and around the natural hill?
Otherwise, this subsection is OK.

Facilities -

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph has a {{citation needed}} flag going back to March 2011, that pre-dates the nomination of this article at WP:GAN.
Otherwise this section is OK.

Events -

The both second and the fifth paragraph have a single {{citation needed}} flag, each of them go back to March 2011 and these pre-date the nomination of this article at WP:GAN.
Otherwise this section is OK.

WP:LEAD -

This should both introduce that topic of the article and summarise the main points to be found in the body of the article; and it makes a reasonable attempt to cover both of these aspects. However:

I'm not sure that: "the entire structure was demolished and rebuilt" is entirely correct. The hill was natural and structures have been added to this hill and excavation / blasting work has been carried out at the foot of the hill. The New hill subsection is rather vague on what work as carried out and this is reflected in the Lead.
It claims categorically that "the hill has been rebuilt 19 times". A citation aught to be provided for this, since this claim does not appear in the body of the article - various changes to the hill are mentioned in detail but its not stated whether all the changes are include in these discussion.
The lead is rather "thin" and there are topics that are not summarised in the lead. These include that the tower could be demolished provided it was replace with one of similar architectural quality, the importance of the "activity" rather the structures, the surrounding Holmenkollen National Arena, transport to the areas (by public transport only).

At his point, I'm going to put the review "On Hold". The article could make GA-status this time round, but there are several unaddressed {{citation needed}} flags going back more than two years, some additional clarification need on the New hill subsection and improvements to the Lead needed. Pyrotec (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec, it looks like the nominator, Oztuck, was a Wikipedia novice who was doing some work in the Skiing and Snowboarding WikiProject areas, but who hasn't posted since May 5 (after being accused on his or her talk page of spamming), with a total of 73 edits after about four months. (None of these edits were on the Holmenkollbakken article that Oztuck nominated.) You might want to check the WikiProject (or someone you know interested in similar articles or who has nominated same) to see whether they wish to take on working with you to get this article to GA status, or even ping Oztuck's talk page if you think that's worthwhile. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueMoonset, Thanks for your input. I was aware of part of this information, but not all of it: it looked like a "drive-by nomination" as the record showed that Oztuck has not edited this article at all. Unfortunately, the obvious choice is Arsenikk as has has done similar articles, but he has not edited since 28th March. I had to fail his last nomination for the most likely the same reasons (i.e. lack of corrective actions). I could fix the Lead myself, but I can't do anything about missing citations, especially Norwegian ones. I'll leave the review on open for one week until next Tuesday, and if its not fixed by then I'll "fail" it. Pyrotec (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interstering and informative article, but it has {{citation needed}} templates going back to March 2011.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
I've raised a few minor questions about prosse (see above), but in general this is OK.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
In general OK, but the Lead needs some work (see above).
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
It has {{citation needed}} templates going back to March 2011 that should have been addressed before nomination.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Unfortunately, this seems to have been a "drive by" nomination by an author who made no contribution to the article, but had an interest in skiing, and who now appears to be inactive. In effect, in needs little more than three citations to be provided and some translations to be addressed. Given that both of these are likely to be Norwegian, it really needs a Norwegian speaker to address them. If these are addressed, the article could be renominated again, and I'd be happy to review it. Pyrotec (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]