Talk:Eidsiva Arena/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Very strong in this area.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All issues have been addressed and I feel that the article meets the GA Criteria. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• Can you add the sport that the teams listed in the lead play? Since there are several sports played in the hall it would be good to specify what sports these teams play in. I assume hockey from the context but I'm not sure.
  • Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see anything about the construction of the arena in the lead. This should be added.
  • The price and opening date were mentioned, but I added another sentence. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Construction

• Some of the writing is a little rough for example: "...in and around Lillehammer to secure that the town was awarded the Olympics..." I would reword: "...in and around Lillehammer to help the town secure the right to host the Olympics."
  • Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what is meant by this: "The venue was given priority by NIF in grants to promote the Olympic bid." Did the NIF give grants or did the NIF give priority for grants? It doesn't seem clear.
  • I've tried to clarify. NIF gives recommendations for who gets grants. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• "The naming of the arena..." "naming" → "name".
  • Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• "...who was transported across by mountains by skiers during the 13th century..." Not sure this is important information. Your thoughts?
  • The idea was to try to summarize the whole issue of the Birkebeiner tradition which was the basis for a lot of the marketing of the games, but without the full story I agree that it could be removed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Why the red link for Kristin and Håkon? I assume this is to link to the mascots of the 1994 Olympics, I'd remove the link personally since it's red. It doesn't seem necessary.
  • The article (about the mascots) is on my to-do list for articles related to the 1994 Winter Olympics, but it not my top priority right now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Consider changing "Kristins Hall has had smaller renovated several times..." to "Kristins Hall has had small renovations throughout the years..."
  • Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• There is a link to the Lillehammer bid for the 1992 Games, which they lost, but I don't see a link to the bid for the 1994 Games, which they won. There should be a link to the 1994 bid. Perhaps in the paragraph starting with "After Lillehammer was awarded the 1994 Winter Olympics in 1988..." linking to "awarded". Just a thought. There may be a more intuitive place to put it though.
  • Again, I haven't gotten around to making that article yet. I did a huge bunch of the 1994 Olympics-related article a while ago, but I need a pause for a while before I return. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Facilities

• It seems like the sprint track should be part of the main sections. No? I'm not sure I've never been there but that seems like it would take up a good chunk of real estate. I'll leave it up to you.
  • I haven't been able to find out any more about the track. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Events

• Can Lillehammer IK and Oshaug be linked? Same with the various handball and curling club teams. Though if it generates all red links then I don't think it'll be helpful.
  • Lillehammer IK is linked in the lead, but I can link it again. The rest of the clubs lack article on the Norwegian Wikipeida (which has a significantly lower inclusion criteria than here) and it is very unlikely that any of them are notable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• You indicate in the lead that the Hall was used as a practice arena during the Olympics but this isn't mentioned here. It should be if it is brought up in the lead.
  • Hm, good catch. I found a suitable reference and added it in the text. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that Events is the right title for this section. I'm just concerned that one paragraph lists all the clubs while the other discusses events. Perhaps "Use and events" would be a better title or something that would reflect the clubs that use the arena on a regular basis.
  • Changed to 'tenants and events'. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

References

• Are the articles from the Norwegian news agency online anywhere? Just wondering if they can be linked here or if they are only archived in offline sources.
  • They are available via a closed online service (Atekst) which I have access to via my university. It is not available to the general public as you need a university IP address to access it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Ok, just checking as it would improve the accessibility of the information. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Overall

• You have a nice little article here. There are some concerns listed above which I will summarize here:
• Some prose problems. I've outlined most of what I could catch above. Please rectify.
  • These should have been seen to now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• I'd like to see how the Hall is supported financially on an ongoing basis. How much does it cost to keep it running? Where does this money come from? Is there information on this?
  • Its municipal, so operating costs are covered by them. Uncertain if I can find a specific reference for that, though I've added that it is 'municipally owned and operated'. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Have there been any other notable events at the hall since 1994? A major hockey Norwegian hockey league championship or an international curling competition? Other than the 2016 Youth Olympics there isn't really any current or future use information.
  • With the opening of Håkons Hall, all notable tournaments held in Lillehammer have been played there, including the finals of a world ice hockey championship, two handball world and two handball European championships. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That makes sense, Kristins Hall becomes the poor little brother (or sister?) in comparison to the bigger Hall next door. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• The refs are all credible, I would like to see if the articles can be linked but that isn't a major issue.
  • What is available is linked and archived. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• The images look good, all free use as far as I can tell.
• The article is stable.
• At this point I'm going to hold the nomination in the hopes that some work can be done on the writing and perhaps some information can be added to the issues raised above. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking the time for the review. I believe I have seen to all the issues. It is nice to see you back again; I was saddened when I saw your former retirement. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I won't be able to finalize the review now and may not be able to finish it up until Monday but I wanted to say thanks for your thoughts regarding my semi-retirement. I burned out and was confronted with more pressing priorities. But my Wikipedia hunger is back and so here I am. I'm also glad to see that you're angling into Olympics-related content. It will be nice to have someone else doing Olympics-related work that is actually active in article writing and improvement. It seems like so many in the Olympics community here are focused on other (important) ventures. It gets a bit lonely toiling away on article writing so welcome aboard! Perhaps we can join up on the 1994 Winter Olympics at some point? H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The article looks good, I'll be happy to pass it. Well done! H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)