Talk:Skåneland/GA1

GA Reassessment

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

The ribbon of images down the righthand side of the article is causing layout problems. I'd suggest using a table format to fix that, as in this example, or reducing the number of images.

The left-aligned image of the historian Martin Weibull is squeezing the text between it and the right-aligned image opposite, and overwriting the text behind it.

The first, third, and fifth paragraphs of Scanian regionalism are uncited.

References in popular culture is entirely uncited.

The second paragraph of Modern usage needs to be cited.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing and for your own fixes to the article. It was a fair review in my opinion, and I agree with the issues you mention.

I can fix the layout, unless some of the more involved editors do it first. I'll wait for a few days.
The sections that need referencing should be referenced by those who wrote them. If they don't, I'll try to find some references for the sections, and if I can't find any, I'll remove or rewrite the sections accordingly.
"References in popular culture" could be deleted, in my opinion. Whether "Skåneland" in popular culture just refers to the Scanian area or to the larger territory is hard to know. I also don't find the mention in popular culture to be of particular interest. However, if this sections gets referenced, it could remain.

Fred-J 15:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fair review indeed, and I think your task force is doing a good and very important work.

Do we really need so many images in the article? Three maps from roughly the same period depicting the same land area. I'll keep Image:Scaniaemap.jpg because it has the highest resolution and detail. I'll remove some more images and try to fix the layout problems.
The "References in popular culture" section feels unnecessary and incomplete, I don't mind if it's removed from the article.

--Krm500 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I removed the "Reference in popular culture" section. I think the images look alright now, good job with that.

The only book I have on Skåne in one by Ingvar Andersson that covers the time 1200-1500 so the references I add come from whatever I find on the internet.

To reviewer: If there is particular statements that need references, could you add "cite"-tag for it?

Fred-J 20:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's really only one area where I think a further citation is needed, Bornholm Rebellion, so I've added a {{fact}} tag for that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks very much to everyone for the work that's been done on this article. I'm closing this review now as a keep. It's a very nice article, you've done your subject proud. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]