Talk:Nortraship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nortraship article.
Article policies
Nortraship was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 3, 2006
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Doesn't it make more sense for Nortraship to be short for NORwegian TRAde and SHIPping Mission rather than Norwegain Shipping and Trade Mission?

Extending the article, hope to finish by the end of the week - should be by the end of WW II then... Ulflarsen 22:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have done the first "version" now - but this topic needs more work. Its a huge one to dive into though. Ulflarsen 17:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've made a few corrections (mostly grammar) but basically a fascinating article on a little-known (outside Norway!) subject. Thank you. Lovingboth 11:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected correction of date

Changed January 1st, back to 1 January as the latter is in line with EU guidelines:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/translation/writing/style_guides/english/style_guide_en.pdf

Ulflarsen 07:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Reviewe and Good Article status

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per WP:MOS-L and WP:BTW, create links to relevant articles.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 17 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 2(c) highly recommends.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,

  • ALSO:

You have a broken image link and the spelling and grammar is wrong in several spots. GA candidacy is failed due to these issues and those in the PR output. Rlevse 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the comments:

  • There is not much about Nortraship on the web in English, so there is not much more to link to - if there were I would have done it.
  • Don't really see the use for more linked years here - and there is a tendency to overlink on Wikipedia which I certainly do not follow. I try to ask myself; will this link add to the context and the readers understanding. Rather often it does not - and I drop the link.
  • Regarding references, the books used for writing it is stated below the article. Anyone reading Norwegian can check them up at the local library. They are not - and will probably never be, translated into English.
  • Broken image is removed.
  • Regarding grammar etc - I am a Norwegian and thus not a native English - someone else will have to take care of checking the text for mistakes.

To round this up: Yes, I am a bit angry about the comments. Anyone and his aunt can check out who has done the fair share of this article, and anyone and his dog can improve on it. I have used some weeks in writing it, and the result is that I get the message.

I started the same project (translating an article from Norwegian into English) with the White Buses article, for the same reasons, there isn't any article about it, and it is sufficiently important. I have now learned that it was a mistake and that I need to wait until someone that either is a native English speaker or has a universitydegree - or both, comes around. Good to know! Ulflarsen 15:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be discouraged by this review Ulf! I nominated the article for Good Article status because I thought it met the criteria and because it is a good way to advertise the article. So this wasn't some random wikipedian who happened to drop by and decided to butcher the article:) The article is in my opinion very good, but the Peer review process rarely produces positive comments. It most often points out the areas where improvement could be made. I have nominated a couple articles, but I see there is a trend among those editors contributing to Good Article assessment and Peer Review to creat automated responses such as the one above. I don't think that does the author(s) of an article proper justice. Inge 15:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)