Talk:Rødkleiva

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rødkleiva article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Rødkleiva has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 12, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Norway

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

Skiing and Snowboarding Low‑importance

	Sports portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of skiing and snowboarding articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Skiing and SnowboardingWikipedia:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingTemplate:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingSkiing and Snowboarding articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Olympics Low‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 23:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Initial review edit

I have completed my initial review, and I make a few changes here and there to clarify a few things and do some copy editing. I believe most everything is in order; however, there is one sentence in the last section that needs a citation. The sentence giving figures on the number of tickets sold and the number of attendees needs to be sourced. I'll return to pass the article once that issue has been dealt with. I'll place the article on hold until then. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 23:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for sacrificing your precious time to review the article. As for the sentence in question, it and the following sentence use the same reference (Vaage p. 123). Except for exceptionally contentious material and quotes, I will not repeat the same reference in succession. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

That fine. --Tea with toast (話) 01:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Final review edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Well done! --Tea with toast (話) 01:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic