Talk:Norwegian Police Service/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 19:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC) During a terse pre-review perusing, I didn't find a major structural deficiencies of problems, all sources seemed to be reliable, no edit wars going on, or anything else entailing the impetus for a quick-fail. This being my first review, I may need some extra time to consummately review the article. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Review

1. I will be conducting this review section-by-section, in a serialized fashion, starting with the lead:

Lead & Infobox

Lead

I fixed two little typographical errors in the lead, and everything else is fine. I do have a suggestion however; when you mention the police jurisdiction of Svalbard, might you want to add Jan Mayen. It will not affect the outcome of this review, but it would efface any reader's potential question regarding the matter.

• The reason I did not add Jan Mayen there is that it (unlike Svalbard) has no permanent population, making it a rather trivial issue in my opinion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Really, not only did I learn something new, I now believe that, yes, it would be trivial. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

1 typo fixed, everything else sufficient.

History

Four typos fixed, all refs appear good, and the images are good for usage, so this section will pass.

Structure

All images are good, but for the for the prose...
*"The directorate is led by the National Police Commissioner, who since 2012 has been Odd Reidar Humlegård." Please consider adding comma before/after "since 2012"

Added. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

*"The National Criminal Investigation Service is a national unit which works with organized and serious crime." Serious crime is what exactly? Violent crime?

The source doesn't mention specifically, but (this is my experience from media) there are no strict rules as to what cases they would be involved in. They would probably investigate a murder, but a rape would normally be handled by the police district. I agree that "serious" is a vague term, but it would probably require two paragraphs to explain it accurately.

Fair enough, point dismissed. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

*"...although they also assist police district in extraordinary events." Plural form of district please, as well as a clarification on "extraordinary events".

Specified. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything else suffices.

Jurisdiction and capabilities

Everything prose related looks great here, the images are fine for use, and the refs seem to be suitable.

Investigation and prosecution

Some issues here...
"The director general makes decisions to prefer indictment in cases with a maximum penalty of twenty-one years and certain other serious crimes." Prefer, what exactly does that mean. Is the pre-meditated intent to indict? Also, "and certain other serious crimes" what?

English legal jargon is not my strong side and this what my dictionary recommended me to write, but I have changed the wording. As for "certain other serious crimes", this refers to chapters 8, 9 and 10 and sections 135, 140, 142 and 144 in the Penal Law, which involves a wide range of crimes which would be too long to mention here, largely because the have little in common except being "serious".

I see, issue fixed in that case. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"If the investigations lead to positive finding, minor cases may be resolved by police penalty notice, settlement by a conflict resolution board and withdrawal of prosecution." While major ones would not be?

Rephrased; major issues are discussed in the next paragraph.

Good then. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Other than this, all good, including images.

Education and employment

The prose and content here is stellar, not an issue in sight. Images all check up fine. I will be stopping here for today, and at this point, the article has some outstanding issues. I think it will be pragmatic to wait until they are acknowledged/repaired before we advance in the review.QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Equipment

As all prior issues have been addressed, the review will continue.
"Arming requires permission from the chief of police or someone designated by him." Arming; is this referring to the armament of a police force, the choice of firearms, or the armament of an individual officer?

Specified. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"Specially-trained forces use Diemaco C8 assault rifles." Although I do not require it, it would surely be beneficial to elaborate on this, by listing some/all of the forces that use the C8s.

Specified. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything else is good.

Conclusion

As far as my initial review goes, I think my requisite, abecedarian knowledge of the reviewing process has been enough to carry out a consummate review. I say with much pleasure that as soon as these latest few issues/peccancies are fixed, the article is ready for GA classification. As soon as these issues are fixed, I will pass the article. Congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)