Talk:Svalbard/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jhbuk (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "Transport": "Arktikugol" should be explained or linked.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Well referenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There isn't really any information about education (University Centre in Svalbard only gets one sentence), or things like sports and culture, but I assume that would be pretty much exclusive to Longyearbyen? Maybe also add an average length of time spent there for each visitor - what % come on cruises for instance? The sections are excellent summaries of the main articles.

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):

   Plenty of very useful images.

7. Overall:

   Pass:

   Excellent (sorry the review's a little sort again) Jhbuk (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. There is so much to say about Svalbard and so little space, so deciding what to say is a bit difficult. But I think you're right: there should be more about the communities, both Longyearbyen and Barentsburg, and perhaps some more about tourism, although I haven't come across the particular statistics you suggest. I'll look into it. Arktikugol is explained in the "economy" section, but I can add a little note in the transport section too. There should come improved articles for the various settlements in the near future, and much more will be said there. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)