GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Chip123456 ( talk · contribs) 17:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The article is well written and is backed up by references. If possible more images can be placed on there. I will carry on reviewing it now. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 17:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Since the article that I'm viewing is in English it would be good to see that the references could be in this language. Some are in Norwegian and whilst I respect that it is in Norway, it is on the English Wikipedia so should contain English reading language. This does need to be rectified otherwise I o others can't read through the sources to verify reliability. The article will be placed in hold for this issue to be rectified. To other editors - pleas feel free to comment with your views on the article on THIS page. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 18:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Google translate can be very unreliable and untrustworthy. I've asked an administrator for some advice and will carry on reviewing once I have received a reply which hopefully won't take too long, but I want to be sure. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 20:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to be sure that refs in other languages were sufficient, so yes, I did. I don't want other editors thinking that it wasn't good enough and then, for example reassessing it and not trusting my judgement. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 15:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Whilst I'm busy translating, you could expand the article in the following areas:
-- Chip123456 ( talk) 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Some of the references that I click on lead to other Wikipedia article, not reliable. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 16:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
But, it links to a wikipedia page, not an external source, which is required! -- Chip123456 ( talk) 15:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Offline sources are very much accepted, although you could move the source onto this article. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source so you can't link your edits up to them, move the sources to them though! -- Chip123456 ( talk) 18:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This is the other part of the policy for non English sources:
When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote. When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.-- Chip123456 ( talk) 16:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I note the request for a second opinion. I also note that which of the Good Article criteria you are not sure about are not clearly listed, so I will give an opinion about the points raised above, which appear to fall into two categories. These are:
As to English sources, I suspect that there are very few, because of the subject matter, and therefore the sources either have to be in Norwegian or there would be no content which could be adequately supported by references. The job of assessing their relevance is down to the assessor, who should not need to be thinking that "other editors" may not trust their judgment. Wikipedia works by assuming good faith (most of the time), and if you have made a reasonable attempt at verifying the references, and this is clearly indicated in the review, there is no place for others questioning the outcome of the review based on that part of the Good Article criteria. As for providing both the source and a translation, I think it would make the article horribly messy, and I can find no precendent for insisting that this should be the case. With online translation so readily available, anyone who wants to check them can do so. The only possible exception to this rule would be if a controversial biographical point was being made, but it is difficult to think that information about an airport would fall into this category.
The other point seems to be that several of the journals which have been cited are also wikilinked to an article about that journal. This is no different to linking to the BBC website, for instance, but also linking the publisher (BBC) to an article about them, or quoting from a book and wikilinking to an article about the author (using the authorlink field if you are using the {cite book} template). This is standard Wikipedia practice, and is to be commended. It in no way implies that Wikipedia is being used as a source, merely that the reader can find more information on who wrote the source by following the link.
I hope this helps to resolve these two issues. You were probably going to do it anyway, but I always find the GAR template helps to focus attention on what needs to be checked and what has been assessed. It also aids other editors to understand that you have checked the article against the relevant criteria. Just replace the "===" fields with "yes" or one of the other options. At the end of the process, whether it passes or fails is still your call, and if we know what you have assessed, we will be supportive. Bob1960evens ( talk) 16:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have read through the sources and translated them, with the help of GT and was satisfied, so now I can see no reason of why the article should fail. To sped up things, if there haven't been any more concerns raised at this time tomorrow, it will be passed. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 18:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Chip123456 ( talk · contribs) 17:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The article is well written and is backed up by references. If possible more images can be placed on there. I will carry on reviewing it now. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 17:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Since the article that I'm viewing is in English it would be good to see that the references could be in this language. Some are in Norwegian and whilst I respect that it is in Norway, it is on the English Wikipedia so should contain English reading language. This does need to be rectified otherwise I o others can't read through the sources to verify reliability. The article will be placed in hold for this issue to be rectified. To other editors - pleas feel free to comment with your views on the article on THIS page. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 18:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Google translate can be very unreliable and untrustworthy. I've asked an administrator for some advice and will carry on reviewing once I have received a reply which hopefully won't take too long, but I want to be sure. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 20:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to be sure that refs in other languages were sufficient, so yes, I did. I don't want other editors thinking that it wasn't good enough and then, for example reassessing it and not trusting my judgement. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 15:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Whilst I'm busy translating, you could expand the article in the following areas:
-- Chip123456 ( talk) 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Some of the references that I click on lead to other Wikipedia article, not reliable. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 16:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
But, it links to a wikipedia page, not an external source, which is required! -- Chip123456 ( talk) 15:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Offline sources are very much accepted, although you could move the source onto this article. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source so you can't link your edits up to them, move the sources to them though! -- Chip123456 ( talk) 18:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This is the other part of the policy for non English sources:
When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote. When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.-- Chip123456 ( talk) 16:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I note the request for a second opinion. I also note that which of the Good Article criteria you are not sure about are not clearly listed, so I will give an opinion about the points raised above, which appear to fall into two categories. These are:
As to English sources, I suspect that there are very few, because of the subject matter, and therefore the sources either have to be in Norwegian or there would be no content which could be adequately supported by references. The job of assessing their relevance is down to the assessor, who should not need to be thinking that "other editors" may not trust their judgment. Wikipedia works by assuming good faith (most of the time), and if you have made a reasonable attempt at verifying the references, and this is clearly indicated in the review, there is no place for others questioning the outcome of the review based on that part of the Good Article criteria. As for providing both the source and a translation, I think it would make the article horribly messy, and I can find no precendent for insisting that this should be the case. With online translation so readily available, anyone who wants to check them can do so. The only possible exception to this rule would be if a controversial biographical point was being made, but it is difficult to think that information about an airport would fall into this category.
The other point seems to be that several of the journals which have been cited are also wikilinked to an article about that journal. This is no different to linking to the BBC website, for instance, but also linking the publisher (BBC) to an article about them, or quoting from a book and wikilinking to an article about the author (using the authorlink field if you are using the {cite book} template). This is standard Wikipedia practice, and is to be commended. It in no way implies that Wikipedia is being used as a source, merely that the reader can find more information on who wrote the source by following the link.
I hope this helps to resolve these two issues. You were probably going to do it anyway, but I always find the GAR template helps to focus attention on what needs to be checked and what has been assessed. It also aids other editors to understand that you have checked the article against the relevant criteria. Just replace the "===" fields with "yes" or one of the other options. At the end of the process, whether it passes or fails is still your call, and if we know what you have assessed, we will be supportive. Bob1960evens ( talk) 16:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have read through the sources and translated them, with the help of GT and was satisfied, so now I can see no reason of why the article should fail. To sped up things, if there haven't been any more concerns raised at this time tomorrow, it will be passed. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 18:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)