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

Nominator: Arconning (talk · contribs) 14:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grumpylawnchair (talk · contribs) 20:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll get around to this in the next few days. Feel free to trout me if I forget.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See comments below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Refs

• Ref spotcheck: #1 ok, #2 ok, #3 ok, #4 ok, #5 ok, #29 ok, #19 ok, #22 ok
• Ref #30 archive not working
  • Ref 30s working perfectly fine for me, don't know what's happening
  • Ignore, that's just my idiotic browser being dumb
• This might be me being an idiot, but where's the ref for the "achievements" section?
  • They're cited in the body though I'll add another source to confirm them!
• Optional (meaning that this isn't part of the GA criteria): Either specify whether all the Norwegian refs are in Bokmȧl/Nynorsk like what is done in ref #13 and #23, or just change all of them to just "Norwegian" for consistency
• Optional: For #1, I'd suggest translating "fellestrening" as "mutual training" or "shared training" since "joint training" could also mean that they are training their joints somehow
• Optional: You can add author to ref #1, Egil Sande; ref #7, Rune Stensland, and a lot more that I'm too lazy to list

Concerns

• Consider glossing ungdomsskolen within the text (like in parenthesis) so that non-Norwegian readers don't have to follow the link to know what that is.
  • Done.
• "invites" reads as too informal - maybe change it to "invitations"
  • Done.
• After some years this made redundant with "she left her family at the age of fifteen" immediately following
• went into foster care and lived in a foster home this is redundant
  • Both done!
• She also began CrossFit at this time this can safely be merged into the previous sentence - so something like She left her family at the age of fifteen and went into foster care, where she began CrossFit
  • Done.
• she then moved out of the foster home at the age of eighteen. Is there any way you can rephrase this?
  • Done... probably?
• Why is it "kg" sometimes and "kilograms" at other times? I'd suggest you pick one and stick with it.
  • Changed!
• recruited by a coach who also trained in CrossFit This might just be me, but this reads a little awkwardly
  • Done!
• which limited her training with a stick then progressing to the barbell please clarify, I have no clue what that means
  • Done, agreed it was a bit clunky.
• She worked as an apprentice electrician before receiving a degree in electrotechnology. She worked as an electrician before becoming a full-time athlete towards the end of 2022. Is there anyway you could combine those sentences and get rid of the redundant phrasing?
  • Done! There are other branches of electricity so I guess the electrotechnology thingy would help comb it a bit more.
• Is there any particular reason she was placed in foster care?
  • Not that I know of...
• Maybe add something about her being muscular even as a toddler, as said in this ref
• World Weightlifting Championships is linked twice in the lead
• 2024 Summer Olympics is linked twice
• Grimstad is linked twice

Conclusion:

• I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.
  • @Grumpylawnchair:, yellow I have addressed most of these! Arconning (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With my concerns addressed, I will pass this nomination. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]