Talk:Lerkendal Stadion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLerkendal Stadion 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
DateProcessResult
November 20, 2011Good article nomineeListed

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs) 20:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is reasonably well written: a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

I think the article could do with a bit more copyediting, for example in the lede there is a sentence "Lerkendal opened as a multi-purpose stadium in on 10 August 1947" (the in is superfluous). Even as a football fan, I was not exactly sure what the phrase "league final" meant until I clicked the league season article (it was the decisive match of the league, not a cup final). Not much work needed really. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the in on and i've rephrased the final part—this is the sort of reasons why I take it to GA. I can go through on a copyedit again, but there will always be some small things which get past. Arsenikk (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Everything checks out here, all important statements are referenced to reliable sources (Norwegian media, football organisations, government). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused):

I think there are a few aspects that are unclear. I'm not exactly sure why the stadium was built in the first place. For example, it's clear why it was redeveloped (RBK's participation in Europe). RBK didn't become tenants until 10 years after it opened. The article mentions relief work, was this like a Norwegian version of public works, in response to the Great Depression? German barracks are mentioned: was the stadium construction in some way related to the German occupation of Norway? The international matches of the stadium are listed, all of which were between 1951 and 1987. I am curious as to why there have not been any more since 1987, particularly since the redevelopment. Is there a preferred national stadium which is (almost) always used? Have there been any significant events at Lerkendal, apart from football matches? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. I've explained the relief/public works issue, which should explain "why". I've also rephrased the barracks sentence to give some context (this is so obvious for Norwegian it would go without saying, but I understand that this is not so for other people). I've also found at least official reason for all international matches being played at Ullevaal, and some major concerts held at the venue. Arsenikk (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias:

I don't see a problem here, the article doesn't misrepresent the subject. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is stable. No edit wars, etc.:

Not much editing at all, never mind warring! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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):

There are pictures of almost every perspective of the modern stadium. My only slight gripe would be there is no images of the stadium in (say) the 1960s, when it had big attendances and internationals, but it may not be possible to source free images of this. 20:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have looked every conceivable place, but have found nothing. We have a fantastic source of images of Norway up until the 1940s, but after that there is no real source of images until the present. Not much that can be done. Arsenikk (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall: Pass/Fail:

Fairly close to passing, really. I think the only significant problem is the lack of context as to why the stadium was developed initially. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late replay, I have been unavailable. All should have been seen to now, thanks for the good questions and remarks. Arsenikk (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The changes have answered my concerns. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 40 external links on Lerkendal Stadion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]