Talk:.no/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 19:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The prose is generally very good. I will list the most problematic phrases

"Registrars much comply to a certain level of technical and administrative resources, must pay an annual fee of NOK 5,000 and a deposit of minimum NOK 10,000, depending on activity level." and "Registrars much also undertake a minimum activity of either administrating or registering forty domains per year.[16][17]" are confusing. Perhaps "much" should be changed to "must"
- Yes, much should be must. Odd I did the same goof twice in a row. Hope they read better now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and a further five domains directly under each of the second-level domains.[22]" - As far as I know domains is not a verb, so I don't fully understand this phrase. If you left out the a it would make sense
- Rephrased; hope it reads better. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your changes. I will promote this article to GA-status. Excellent article that is close to meeting FA-status. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was slow in doing my own read-through of this article. So, despite its confirmed good article status, I made changes that I think it needed. A spelling fix, and one or two word-changes that make the English read more naturally to me. I asked for clarification when the addition of 23 characters was mentioned in the history section, because I'm nervous of making statements about the Norwegian language, of which I know next to nothing. Perhaps you could clarify that by stating the 23 characters permittied, Arsenikk. Once again, thanks for your hard work on this article. —fudoreaper (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have specified somewhat to indicate that all the Sami and Norwegian letters were introduced then. The 23 specific characters are listed under the policy section, and repeating those are in my opinion superfluous. Thanks for the comments, Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, I like what you did there. I did notice you referencing the full permitted character set in the Policy section, which seems the right place for it. The additional characters may be evident to a Norwegian, but an English person, adding characters to an alphabet could be quite confusing--what characters were added? So yes, your recent change is quite good, no need to list them, but to describe them as Norwegian and Sami language characters clarifies where these extra characters would come from. Thanks for your improvement, it looks great.

I took the liberty of linking the languages in the history section, especially Norwegian and Sami will be unfamiliar topics to the majority of English readers, I don't think it's too much linking. Cheers. —fudoreaper (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]