Talk:Norid

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   to determine domain deputes Is domain disputes meant? Or deputising of domains? Or something else? Y

   I made a few minor copy-edits.[2]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources check out, all are reliable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough and focussed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   On logo used with appropriate tag and rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, just one query. On Hold for seven days.

   OK, thanks for fixing that. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I meant "domain disputes" and fix it to that. Thanks for the copyedit. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Norid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150713221259/https://www.norid.no/omnorid/index.en.html to http://www.norid.no/omnorid/index.en.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65uDTqOSy?url=http://www.norid.no/omnorid/bv-sj.en.html to http://www.norid.no/omnorid/bv-sj.en.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65CYcerIF?url=http://www.npt.no/ikbViewer/Content/no_eller_aldri.pdf?documentID=48115 to http://www.npt.no/ikbViewer/Content/no_eller_aldri.pdf?documentID=48115

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable source

It seems to me that the source used in the "Policy" section of the page is unreliable, if not unreliable, indeterminate. Kindly look it up and see if it should be removed. I will be tagging it with a template. Bekkadn (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)