Jump to content

Talk:Odense

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Odense/Archive 1

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Odense/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 13:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will pick this one up: it may be a day or two before I get going, but we will get this sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, no rush! Take as long as you like!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a very quick run-through, there are a few things that need looking at before I review fully:

  • nine [citation needed] tags that need sorting
Sorted except one now I think.
  • I'd either lose or beef up the "Mayors" section
Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's quite a bit of overlinking that needs looking at (including Hans Christian Andersen twice in the lead alone)
Got Hans sorted I think. I have a second link in the notable people section though for convenience if that's OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Municipal administration: "Social Demoncrats" is a spelling mistake, I presume, rather than a political statement?!
Typo! Fixed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume this is in British English (it does seem to be), in which case "shopping mall" should be "shopping centre"—we don't tend to use the word "mall" at all; similarly, "congress centers" should be "congress centres"
  • There's no such word as " quayage"
45,000 odd others don't think so!! I've reworded it anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep: my mistake on this one - the OED lists it, even if it isn't used that oftern. - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 34 33 and 69 68 need the pages looked at (no closing to the range)
Think these are OK now.--Ipigott (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN130 – is a dead link
Replaced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links: "Odense – City of Hans Christian Andersen" is a dead link.
Removed I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are just a few minor points: if you could sort these out, I'll start going through it properly. I've made a few minor tweaks here and there, largely around spelling etc. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, I spotted some extra things which needed sourcing after I nommed it and thought of the mayors. Perhaps @Ipigott: has access to a list of mayors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a complete list of all the mayors since 1378 here but I'm not sure what you would like to do with it!--Ipigott (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking. There are still a few examples of overlinking, listed below. They may not all need to be removed, but you should certainly go through and see if they are justified:

  • "Early history": St Canute's Abbey.
  • "Middle Ages": Middle Ages
  • "Geography and climate": Funen, Aarhus, Odense River, Odense Fjord
  • "Landmarks": Nonnebakken, Saint Canute's Cathedral, Danish, Claus Berg, Odense Palace
  • "Palaces and theatres": Odense Palace, King Frederick IV, Frederick IV, Odense Teater
  • "Museums": Møntergården
  • "University of Southern Denmark": University of Southern Denmark, Odense University
  • "Sports": Funen, Odense River
  • "Transport": Port of Odense, Funen, Aarhus, Copenhagen, Odense Station, Copenhagen, Svendborg
  • "Media": TV 2
You are quite right to point these out. Many of them are not justified. I've tried to sort them out.--Ipigott (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to go through the review in more detail a little later today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copyediting and tweaking throughout—it was easier to do it, rather than type out what you have to do—but there is one thing you should look at before this goes to GA:

Thanks, SchroCat, for all your copy edits. You've saved us time and trouble. As a Brit (like you), I am however surprised you changed several of the verb forms in "-ize" to "-ise". Maybe the American Wikipedians have their own ideas about British English but like many British publications, I prefer -ize which comes to me more naturally as I type. Even OED uses -ize (see [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/ize-ise-or-yse here). I don't usually make spelling mistakes although there may be typos from time to time. You don't need to change them back. I just thought I should point this out in cae anyone else is looking at what we've been doing.--Ipigott (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ipigott, ~ize is fine in AmEng and Oxford English, but ~ise is (loosely) the more standard general English usage. I don't have a problem if you want to change it back (please do feel free to do so - or I am more than happy to do it for you too), but it would probably be worth your time adding the OxEng tag at the top and on the talk page to show it is that variant, rather than the general form as too many people incorrectly assume ~ize is only an AmEng thing. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, please don't bother to change them back. I'm fine with -ise too but I type quickly (touch-typing) and the -ize forms just come out automatically. My spelling checker on Firefox doesn't alert me to any problems either. I beg to differ, though, with your analysis. I think you will find academic literature by British authors prefers the -ize forms too. And I really don't think it should be necessary to place a special explanation at the top of every article I edit or create. I'll try to get @Dr. Blofeld: to handle the date sequences. He added the dates and I never know what kind of dashes Wikipedia prefers (or where they can be found in the Wiki markup). --Ipigott (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors

  • I think I'm right in saying that the year ranges fail the MoS, and should be in the format of (1792–97) etc

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all good and happy to pass here.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality: Green tickY
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Green tickY
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources: Green tickY
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Green tickY
    C. No original research: Green tickY
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: Green tickY
    B. Focused: Green tickY
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias: Green tickY
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc: Green tickY
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Green tickY
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Green tickY
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: All good: I am happy to ✓ Pass – SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twin cities

[edit]

Ohconfucius has twice deleted this section which I think is important and useful. Unless others share his views, I think the section should be restored. See also here.-- Ipigott (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And he's been spoken to already about there being consensus to keep them in city articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should explain that my revert was to bring the article back to its last "stable state", and try and initiate dialogue on the matter. Having mulled it over I think my opinion is that they are of importance within the framework of an town's article, and certainly shouldn't be dismissed as "clutter". The only thing I would change is the inclusion of the flags, which may fall outside MOS:FLAG; others may disagree and think their inclusion is fine in MOS terms and helpful, and I'm not fussed enough to argue the point on it, but perhaps those who re-wrote and took the article through GAN think about that point and come to a decision, which I will be happy to support as the consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Odense. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dates. Both 1908 and 1930?

[edit]

The article states, about the childhood home of Hans Christian Andersen, that:

  • "In 1908 the house was opened as the Hans Christian Andersen Museum." and
  • "Opened as a museum in 1930, the house contains an exhibition of the cobbling tools used by his father and other items based on Andersen's own descriptions."

While both may be true, the discrepancy should be explained. --Hordaland (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Odense. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odense&oldid=1212158767"