Talk:Politics of Svalbard/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 16:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial readthrough

The temperatures seems off, at least conversions between Celsius to Fahrenheit (not everywhere, but the ones that have problem have "-change" in the markup), but I'm not sure how to fix them correctly.
I've tweaked some sentences as I went both for grammatical and stylistic reasons. If you disagree with any of the changes, feel free to revert me.
- Thanks. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" which was not granted to Arktikugol, leading to a heated relationship with the Soviet Union." -- this sentence is a bit confusing for two reasons. First, what does the "which" refer to here--drilling rights, claims based on indications of oil, samples? This might be simply split into two sentences for clarity. Second, doesn't Norway already have a heated relationship with the Soviet Union at this point? Maybe a milder phrase like "contributed to tensions with" would work better here. "Leading to a heated relationship with" makes it sound like the Caltex drilling is the sole issue.
- Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good so far. More to follow... -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"subject the rights and duties of Norwegian membership in the League of Nations" -- I'm not sure what this phrase means. (The word "subject" is what's throwing me here.) Is it possible for this to be rephrased?
- That is a verbatim quote from the treaty. I don't really understand its implication it myself and perhaps it can be removed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Kings Bay Affair could use a sentence or two more explanation in the text for non-Norwegian readers; it seems significant that a Svalbard incident ended up bringing down a govt., and worth explaining in a bit more detail. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another sentence. It is a rather complicated issue, as the accident in part was only a proxy, but giving a fully understandable explanation would be far too long here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CIA Factbook mentions recent territorial disputes in the zone over fishing rights with Russia. Is more available on this, and is it worth including? [1] -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Checking Highbeam for "Svalbard fishing Russia", it looks like there were some issues from 1977-2005 that are probably worth a paragraph: "The two ministers discussed recent fishing conflicts in the Barents Sea, including an incident last month involving a Russian trawler that fled the Norwegian Coast Guard with two Norwegian inspectors trapped on board, ANB reported. In 1977, Norway unilaterally expanded its fisheries control zone around the Svalbard Islands to 200 nautical miles, but Russia and most other countries have never accepted the claim."[2][3] -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added information on the fisheries control zone, quotas and the 2010 delimitation agreement. That should make all issued resolved. Thank you for the review. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looks great. That does indeed cover all my concerns; thanks for the edits. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass