Talk:Norwegian Public Safety Network/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2011 (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):

   operator centrals" What does this mean?

   the health sector's communication centrals. Again. Do you mean control centres?

   Health workers will therefore be taking the network into use after the police and fire departments in Follo and Østfold, and not until May 2010 Needs update as this was nearly a year ago.

   ''The alarm center for the fire departments in Østfold and Follo took the system into use in June. June of which year?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   References check out. I assume good faith for those in Norwegian. No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage, no unnecessary trivia.

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):

   I am puzzled by the license for File:Oslo Akershus VW Ambulanse in new colors - 2007.04.03.jpg, which does not seem appropriate. I have left a note at the relevant Commons noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

   Ok, Comons is happy with it so that is fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

   OK, my concerns have been addressed, I am happy to list this. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk)

   Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've fixed the prose issues, trying to find or add more specific terms. As for the image issue, it seems from the linked discussion that the license is fine. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)