# Talk:Aalborg

Hey all, I'm the WikiProject Cities assessor of this article. If feedback is what you want and need, come to my talk page and give me a holler! --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 01:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone changed the population from 123,000 to 123.000. I suspect this is a confusion about differences in the representation of thousands in English where a coma is used as a separator and a point is a decimal place. Or it was just vandalism. Slinky Puppet 16:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, it was probably just a misunderstanding. In many cultures the "." and the "," is used differently than in the British and American cultures. It could instead be discussed why the English Wikipedia should follow the isolated British (and American) culture at all in this matter? I sense that many people with English as primary language, imagine Wikipedia (en) as concerned and centered around their specific culture, but it is not the case at all. They need to wake up and realize the international perspectives. I support you in changing the "," to "." though, as I believe it is the accepted norm of the international global culture.
Btw. outdated non-scientific measurements like ounces, feet, gallons and what have you, should be discouraged on Wikipedia (en). The global world have long time ago adopted the SI system of measurement and have left the middle-ages, where each town had their own system. The old units of measurement, might be helpful to the uneducated few, but in the long run they cause a lot of trouble and misunderstandings and is not acceptable in any modern day communication on the international scene. And Wikipedia (en) is international in its mission and scope and is just exploiting the English language, without serving that specific culture. Thank for raising this important issue. RhinoMind (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

According to the article Aalborg urban area is 139 sq. km, but where does that information come from? The urban area is smaller than that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian2381 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 

I tried to zap the guidebookspeak from the article. But it's creeping back:

The Helnan Phønix Hotel is the large and most prestigious hotel in the city, situated in a mansion which was originally built as a lavish private residence in 1783 for a Danish brigadier. [50] It was converted into a hotel in 1853, and today has 210 rooms, furnished with dark oak.[50] The Chagall was established in the 1950s and is noted for its reproductions of Marc Chagall paintings in the rooms. [50] Radisson Blu Limfjord Hotel, operated by the Radisson Hotels chain contains 188 rooms and is served by the Italian restaurant Vero Gusto.
If I understand correctly, one guidebook to Scandinavia said in 2011 or thereabouts that the Helnan Phønix Hotel was the most prestigious hotel in the city. But what, if anything, does that mean? The best? The most expensive? The one most fancied (for unknown reasons) by people on expense accounts? Who notes the Chagall reproductions? What does "is served by" mean that "has" doesn't mean? Etc. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Change it. And document it here if problems persists, as you did above. RhinoMind (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm creating and wl articles relevant to Aalborg: --Rosiestep (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This one is currently at AfC. Once released, I want to rename it to Musikkens Hus. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me as if the submission was rejected!!! Not sure how to proceed. Perhaps a new article Musikkens Hus can simply be written drawing on the rejected draft? (No wonder we keep losing keen new editors.)--Ipigott (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It was rejected on August 25th. I did a bit of work on it myself yesterday and asked for a new review. I thought about just approving it myself, but I wanted the article creator to see the process from start to finish. I also left a note on the reviewer's talkpage. You are right, we do keep losing keen new editors... and a seasoned one overnight (user:Ched). --Rosiestep (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's what the article draft says about what has already transpired:
House of Music (Danish: Musikkens Hus) is a venue in Aalborg, Denmark. It is located at Musikkens Plads (Music Square) by the Limfjord in the new cultural center area of the city. The building contains a concert hall and practice rooms for the Aalborg Symphony Orchestra and The Royal Academy of Music.
I.e. "It exists at place X and contains Y and Z." The remainder of the draft is about what will (it is said) transpire.
I had nothing to do with this draft and appreciate that it was well intended. However, Wikipedia's notability standards aside for a moment, this strikes me as very thin material indeed for an article. If the building will soon be completed, one can expect that it will thereupon become noteworthy (in the normal, non-Wikipedia sense of the word). Well, wait for this to happen and then create an article based on published sources about the building.
Conceivably, the building is the subject of considerable interest even before it is completed -- because it's architecturally innovative/delightful/insensitive etc. This would make it noteworthy. Can architectural or other sources be adduced for this.
I was a keen new editor once. Here's my first ever new article, in the state in which its second editor found it. It was unsourced and terrible then, and it's still unsourced and terrible now! -- Hoary (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The building is certainly notable in its own right, as is the very idea of building such an enormous music centre for a city of just over 100,000 inhabitants (in addition to the facilities already in the Aalborg Hall complex). I hope we can get this sorted out soon. It seems rather strange to me that seasoned editors have to wait for permission to write an important red-linked article, simply because a newbie is experiencing some difficulties. As for Voigtländer (how logical to start with that one), dear Hoary, are you not afraid of being faced with AfD? The rules (or thier interpretation) seem to be changing quickly with the result that even some of the early FAs are now under threat with their lack of inline referencing. On Voigtländer, the Swedish article seems to be one of the few with some kind of referencing. Thanks btw for drawing attention to some of the Aalborg refs. I hope you are now happy with the changes.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
If the building is enormous for the population, then it would be wise for the article to cite somebody saying this. ¶ As I dimly remember the genesis of the Voigtländer article, I was appalled by the frequency of various misspellings within other articles ("Voigtlander" and even "Voightlander") and thought that the best way to fix them would be via an article on the subject, correctly spelled. Since then, yes, I've become quite obsessed with the risk of AfD, and have tried to proof articles against this. (My most recent new article [I think], weighed down with twenty references.) ¶ Yes, my own niggles are being addressed very well, and this is certainly "GA" material. -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The introduction made grand claims for some of the town's companies. I slapped a warning flag on that, and then looked at the more detailed stuff in the section about companies. 
The sourcing is pretty bad. (For example, a grand claim for one company is sourced to that company's LinkedIn page.) Somebody who, unlike me, knows about the cement, turbine rotor or akvavit business should take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's fixed now. Good. -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We read:

The Aalborg City Council consists of 31 members, including the mayor. Eleven of the council seats are held by the Social Democratic Party, [...]
The first sentence is fine. But the second -- is this degree of detail really appropriate, and can it be kept up to date? I fear that at best it needs to be prefaced with "As of August 2013", or whatever -- which of course weighs it down. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Ipigott (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be relevant to somehow document the political make-up of the council. the detail-level could of course be discussed and external links to the distribution, could probably solve this. The council are on election every 4 years in Denmark and that interval should be long enough for reliable updates. Anyway: to post an (as of 2013) or the like, is not a hassle at all. RhinoMind (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

We are told "The land is very low-lying, with an average elevation of about 5 metres (16 ft)." (unreferenced). I know the city well and while there is a low-lying area along the waterfront, there are many hills in the area, some reaching a height of 50 metres. Some districts towards the south are especially hilly, and from the hills of Nørresundby on the other side of the sound, there are excellent views of the city of Aalborg. I have looked for valid references to all this but have not been able to find them although you can see the lie of the land from the marathon map. Perhaps our geographers can help?--Ipigott (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aalborg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 19:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm reviewing this article, as per Doc's request.  My practice is to fill out the template, and then if needed, do a more thorough prose and source review below.  I also tend to copy-edit as I go, and then use this space for explanations and questions.  Thanks for the opportunity! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

For the most part, a strong article.  There are prose and source issues that should be addressed before it can be passed to GA, though.  My biggest concern is with how the sources have been utilized; I'll explain more below.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
At times, this article reads like a travel article published by the Chamber of Commerce.  This is something that can remedied easily, though; see below for suggestions.
Such as?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
I did a spot check on some of the English sources; what I was able to access concerns me a bit.  In some cases, the references you use don't support your statements.  See below for a more thorough explanation.
Such as? I gather you do that part of the review next, if you could identify all issues you see this would be great, thanks! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
It looks like there has been some nice collaboration here, by three main editors.  Nice!
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: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Images are very nice, and compliment the article well.  Good job.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
On hold until I finish my review.
I read the history section and thought it was really good.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you liked it, Maunus. It certainly required a lot of time, effort, translation and referencing.--Ipigott (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I collaborated on this article, so I will assist in the review. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Now that it looks like all the work has been completed, I'll turn to the prose and source review now.  As I state above, I tend to be thorough.  I'll give examples of my more-general statements above, along with suggestions.  Despite the recent copy-editing, this article at times reads like a travelogue; see below. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


### Prose review
History

Thanks to its site at the narrowest point on the Limfjord, the Aalborg area attracted settlements as far back as the Iron Age and had a thriving Viking community until around the year 1000.  Although it's not technically incorrect to start a sentence with a conjunctive phrase, it's not suggested in encyclopedic writing.  To be safe, I'd re-arrange this sentence to make it clearer: "During the Iron Age, Aalborg, which had a thriving Viking community until around the year 1000, and many other villages were founded on the narrowest point on the Limfjorden fjord."  I looked at the original wording in the source to help me with this.
It seems to have been reworded but not in the way you suggested which isn't an improvement IMO because the and many other villages really doesn't fit the wording before it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with the new version. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the current wording adequately explains the early history. I therefore consider it  Done.
In the Middle Ages, the town benefitted from royal trading privileges, its natural harbour and a thriving herring fishing industry. I realize this is picky, but the phrase "benefitted from" isn't strictly encyclopedic.  The source states that the town "flourished" during this period for the reasons listed; how about: "In the Middle Ages, royal trading privileges, its natural harbour and a thriving herring fishing industry resulted in the town's growth." -  Done
I've changed "resulted in" to "contributed to" as it was an on-going process.
The dvelopment mentioned, resulted in more than just more houses and a larger city. It also resulted in an expanding economy and a better standard of living in general. Should this not be reflected? I believe the word "flourished" says it all in one word. I think its a great descriptive word RhinoMind (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Despite a number of setbacks over the centuries, the city began to flourish once again towards the end of the 19th century with a bridge over Limfjord and the arrival of the railway.  I'm sure you're going explain later, but what setbacks?  Again, not the most encyclopedic.  Since you probably will explain, I'd just remove the phrase.  And use a different word than "flourish".  And I'd restructure to state something like the creation of the bridge and railway during the 19th century resulting in the town becoming more successful or something like that.
 Done

The "setbacks" (now "difficulties") need to be mentioned, I think, as they really were an important feature of the city's history.
Again I think the word "flourish" is a good word. It is telling a lot, without minute details like, growing economy, improved standards of living, more citizens, more houses, etc.. If you dont want to go into the details, it covers the development in a reasonable way RhinoMind (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Its recent industrial past is now being supplemented by an increasing interest in culture and education.  This is unclear; I'd change it to state that the town's recent success is because of an increase in interest in culture and education, or something similar.
 Done
The beginnings

4th sentence, 1st paragraph: I'm having issues with the phrase emphasise the significance of the place as...  I think my issues surround the fact that something inanimate can't act upon something else, or the use of a verb in cases like this isn't always accurate.  I'd restate it to say that the reason for the sizes of the two original settlements were due to their points on the Limfjord, or something like that.
It's clearer now, but I still have an issue with the wording, for similar reasons.  Sizes can't explain something, not even clearly.  How about: "These settlements, one from the 6th-century Germanic Iron Age, the other from the Viking Age in the 9th to 11th centuries, were large due to their placement on the narrowest point on Limfjord, the site of a great deal of traffic between Himmerland to the south and Vendsyssel to the north." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I've rewritten this once again and think it now reflects the historical evidence.  Done
You explain later why the Our Lady Church was demolished, but not why the Convent was shut down (at least that I can see at this early point).  The mention of both cause me to ask why, so I suggest that you take out mentioning it here.
I've offered an explanation as suggested.  Done
All I have time for right now.  I'll try to get to more tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

One more thing about this section, something I can't believe I missed: I'd change the title of this heading to "Beginnings", as per WP:DEFINITE.
 Done
Middle Ages

What's the "old Alborghus"?  Please link it, or if there's nothing to link, provide a few words of explanation.
Spelling corrected and linked.  Done
However, the Middle Ages also brought disaster to Aalborg. Unencylopedic, and anyway, "disaster" usually refers to an earthquake or volcano or other such natural disaster.  I know you're trying for a transition here, but I'd remove it and re-structure it to solve the issue.  I'd put the 1st two sentences at the end of the previous paragraph, and start a new paragraph with the 4th sentence of the current version.
 Done
...in December 1534 it was stormed and plundered by the king's troops after a revolt by the peasants under the leadership of Skipper Clement in what became known as the Count's Feud.  Clunky wording; it's unclear who led the peasants revolt.  How about: "...in December 1534 it was stormed and plundered by the king's troops after a peasants' revolt, later called the Count's Feud and led by Skipper Clement."
I hope it is clearer now.  Done
Some 2000 people were believed to have been killed during this event. I know you're using British English here; is "some" a Briticism for "about" or "approximately", or are you avoiding beginning a sentence with a number?  If it's the former, I'd change it to one of those words, or "over", or "a little under", or something similar.
I was not aware that "some" is a "Britishism". It is widely used in the English-speaking world and is much neater than "approximately". In many cases, it is not clear whether the exact figure is higher or lower that the rounded number given. I have now been through the whole article and made some substitutions. Many of the instances were introduced by other editors. I hope the two or three "some"s that now remain can be regarded as acceptable. (Google gives 726,000 hits for "some 100,000" and 1,840,000 for "about 100,000".)
 Done
With the Reformation in 1536, the town's two monasteries were demolished.  Although technically grammatically correct, it's best to avoid starting a sentence with a preposition.  The way this is worded implies that the monasteries were demolished for religious/political reasons.  Is that the case?  Or better asked, why were they demolished?  I think you should give a brief explanation.
Rewritten.  Done
Aalborg became a bishopric in 1554.  Please link "bishopric", or at least briefly define the term.  This feels a little out of place; perhaps it better belongs with the information about the important institutions established during this time.
I am really surprised the word "bishopric" is a problem. It is quite simply the seat of a bishop. In Wikipedia, bishopric links to various articles, none of which adequately explains the usage of the term here. It is not always the same as a diocese as in some cases the bishop does not reside in the cathedral town which heads it. I prefer to leave it as it is. I think most people will appreciate the historical importance of the city's new status as a bishopric.
Reviewer: Although technically grammatically correct, it's best to avoid starting a sentence with a preposition. Whence this notion? In my own idiolect of English, it's perfectly fine. Wondering if my idiolect perhaps differed from what's recognized as good prose style, I had a quick look at Zuleika Dobson and found Beerbohm revelling in sentences starting with prepositions. But of course a novel is not an encyclopedia. I therefore looked into Britannica, 11th ed., specifically the article "Anemometer". Even if we ignore tokens of what's a preposition as currently defined by linguists but not yet by dictionaries and so on (specifically, conditional "if"; and "although" is one too), we have:

-- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

17th to 19th centuries

Please give a direct citation to the Erik Pontoppidan quote.
 Done

From the beginning of the 19th century...  Again, an issue with your transitions.  I think you could divide this paragraph into two; end the 2nd paragraph after the sentence preceding this one, and remove this sentence.  Then you could end this paragraph with the sentence about Aarhus.
Think this should be OK now.  Done
What do you mean by ... the sea breached the Agger Tange at the western end of Limfjord in 1825.  What exactly happened here; give at least a brief description, please.
Quite right. It needed an explanation.  Done
Towards the end of the 19th century there was however an upturn.  More transition problems.  Again, I'd just remove this sentence, since your readers are probably smart enough to figure out from the text that the town went through ups and downs, and then start a new paragraph at In 1865...
 Done

Prices continued to drop after the state bankruptcy in 1813, leading to widespread poverty over a lengthy period. If you're following a chronological format, and that seems to be the case, this is out of order.  Perhaps it belongs better at the start of the newly-created paragraph, before After Denmark ceded...  How long did the widespread poverty last?
...some 31,500. See above re: "some".  And please go through the article and correct all usages, if necessary.
This is not strictly chronological. It was the long-term after effects that caused the problem. With the new wording, it think it's OK.  Done
Have to stop again.  Sorry for the fits and starts; it may be a day or two before I can return. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
20th century industrialisation

Turn of the century: Which century?  Please say, "Around the beginning of the 20th century".
 Done
Factories with smoking chimneys grew up in the outskirts.  Factories don't "grow".  I'd change it to "...were built in the outskirts of town".
Don't really agree with your comment but I've reworded it anyway. It's important to emphasize the smoking chimneys. I don't remember whether I've mentioned it elsewhere but in Denmark Aalborg became widely known as the city of smoking chimneys.  Done
During the German invasion of Denmark in 1940, the airport was one of the first landmarks captured by German paratroopers very early in the action on the night of the 21 April as German aircraft needed it in order to reach Norway.  I don't think you need the phrase "very early in the action", since the invasion happened early in the war and attack of the airport was early in the Danish invasion.  You do a lot of personalisation in this article; for example, "German aircraft needed it".  I think you should change it to "as German forces needed it..."
Reworded.  Done
Recent developments

I think you should change the title of this subsection, to "Recent history".
 Done
By the beginning of the millennium...  This should be changed for the same reason as above, re: "turn of the century".  Say "the beginning of the 21st century" or "the early 2000s".
Think the rewording takes care of this.  Done
Nørresundby: Other than in the lead, this is the first time you mention this.  I suggest that you give a few words of description.
Good point.  Done
I think I've now addressed all the issues you raise on the history section. Thanks for mentioning all these points. They deserved attention.--Ipigott (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The city

Østerågade, once the old harbor, is noted for its fine merchants' mansions.  "Fine" is peacocky.  I suggest finding another word that describes the mansions.
 Done
A little further out, Hasseris has become a residential district...  What does "a little further out" mean?  Be more specific, please.
If this is a problem, it must indeed be because it is a "Britishism".
 Done addressed both.
Egholm: Why is the restaurant important?  Is it the only one ever built here?

Yes, and it's the only notable feature on the island by the side of the forest. I think it's worthy of mentioning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Acceptable, although it might help to explain that in the article.  I'm just sayin'! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Parks and green spaces

The list of parks is too long, which makes it hard to navigate.  I suggest breaking up the list and give each park its own sentence.
Broken up a bit.
Within the zoo an African savannah has been created where with exotic animals are housed. Is there an extra "with" here?
Well spotted!  Done
Politics and government

Aalborg's current mayor is Henning G. Jensen, a Social Democrat. Well, current until the next guy is elected.  I suggest changing this to: "Henning G. Jensen, a Social Democrat, has been mayor of Aalborg since 1998.  If you do that, you should cut out the phrase about 1998 in the final sentence in the 1st paragraph.
 Done
The lists in the 2nd paragraph are too long.  Again, you should break them up; you don't necessarily have to state "the first department is [ ], the second department is [ ], etc."  People know how to count, you know. ;)  If you did that, you wouldn't need so many parentheticals, either. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I must say I was rather surprised by all these details. As they were added by another editor, I was not too happy about too much simplification but I have worked on this a bit.
Economy

Industrialization has affected the historical landscape of the city although many of the traditional industries have closed in recent years, to be replaced by new knowledge-based and green-energy producers. Is there a time frame on this?  What does "Historical landscape" mean?  You could re-state like this: "Historically, industrialisation has been important for the city, but many traditional industries have closed since [or by] [time frame] and has been replaced by..."
This has been an evolving process over the years. Think you'll find it OK now.  Done
Some of the major contributors to the city's prosperity are described below.  Unnecessary, so I suggest that you cut it.
Cut.  Done
Major private companies

Aalborg Industries, the world's largest manufacturer of marine boilers, has 90 years experience in the field. It has recently expanded into floating production systems for the offshore market.  Why is the 90 years important?  Is it because it's one of the oldest companies in the industry?  If so, you could restate to: "Aalborg Industries, the world's largest and one of oldest manufacturer of marine boilers, has recently expanded into floating production systems for the offshore market."
I just wanted to emphasize that one of the older factories is still thriving.  Done
Facilities

This city has over 300 restaurants, some specialising in gastronomic dishes from Denmark, Europe or Asia.  I suggest changing "this" to "the".  What does "gastronomic dishes" mean?  Sounds like an advertising for the restaurant industry in Aalborg.
 Done
What was your criteria for choosing to list these three restaurants?
Not my choice.
Landmarks: See the religion section for details on churches.  Unnecessary sentence.

Cut.  Done
Historic buildings

Describing Jens Bang's House as "the finest" is peacocky.  How about attributing it to the source?  And describing Bang the way you do makes the paragraph sound like an advertisement, especially since you link him.  The same is true about describing the gables as "proud"; please find another way to describe them.
 Done
Please describe the Danish Distillers headquarters in a different way other than "striking".
 Done
Speaking of: ...combines function with highly symbolic, classical features.  This sounds like it's directly from a promotional brochure, and means very little.  Please restate with clearer language.
It doesn't sound promotional to me. Function vs. decoration was an important trend in Europe at the time. I've nevertheless reworded it and tried to make it a little clearer for those who are not familiar with the history of architecture.  Done
Whew, this is a big review.  I was able to find some extra time today, but I don't promise anything more for a couple of days, although this should keep you busy, right? ;)  It's been fun learning about this city, and makes me want to visit it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Phew! Don't worry about it, I appreciate you taking the time to give it such a thorough review. Might take us a while to bear with us :-]!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Great stuff, Christine! I certainly agree with Dr. B. that your detailed comments are extremely useful. It's always helpful to have a new pair of eyes look at the prose, especially when so much of it is the result of translation. It's also good to be working with someone who takes an interest not only in the content but also in the way it is expressed. I'll certainly go through the bits I wrote myself over the next couple of days (especially the long history section) although I may not be unreservedly prepared to avoid all the "Briticisms" you cite. (For example "Some 2000 people" seems to me to be far more acceptable in English than "About 2000 people" (and we also have "some 100,000" in the lead, "some 31,500" later on and many, many more!!) -- but maybe I can find some way around it if it really bothers you. It is certainly very important not to upset American readers by any unusual turn of phrase in an article about Denmark. I also appreciate your general comments on encyclopedic usage (although the concept is new to me). It may not be the right occasion to mention it, but I would greatly appreciate receiving further background on why terms such as "setbacks", "flourish" and "benefitted from" are not encyclopedic. Anyway, I'll now embark on a full re-examination of the points you raise in the hope that we can keep everyone happy. Finally, I'm really pleased that our article has made you feel like going to Aalborg. You must let me know if ever you decide to travel to Denmark.--Ipigott (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, and please take your time.  I appreciate your patience with me as I get through it.  I don't think you should avoid British usage.  There are lots of articles in WP that do (this is English WP; not American), and it makes sense that an article about a city in Europe does.  Just make a decision and be consistent.  Perhaps you should put a tag on the talk page that states that the spelling and use of English here is British.  Like I said, I'm pretty familiar with British usage, but there are aspects of it that I don't know.  If "some" is a Briticism, then by all means, go with it, although I suggest that you vary it a bit, with other choices like "about" (which is ok) or "approximately".  Or you could use the exact number, if it's available in the sources.  Re: encyclopedic writing: I suggest that you read WP:W2W, a good resource.  I think of it as more formal writing.  And yes, I've always wanted to visit Denmark.  I haven't been to Europe nearly enough; well, actually once, to Paris many many years ago. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate all the time you've been spending on this, Christine, but I think we are now getting to the point where further stylistic comments on the sections we have already edited are counter-productive. I've tried to go along with your recommendations even in cases where I am not too happy with your rather personalized appreciation of "encyclopedic", "grammatical" or "British" usage. I certainly don't want to open up a long discussion here but I would point out that over the past 48 years, I have worked as an editor in North America (Canada) and Europe (European Community) in a wide variety of areas. I can also see by some of your comments that you are a relative newcomer to the field of editing. It's great to have you on board and I hope Wikipedia will continue to enrich your experience. I hope nevertheless you can come up with more of your useful suggestions on the remainder of the article as soon as possible in the hope that we can move on to the improvement of other articles. We've been working on this one since about 10 September. As I have said before, many of your comments have been extremely helpful but let's not go round in circles. If you find this out of place, then I would be happy to leave further edits of the article to my collaborators. I hope nevertheless that some day you'll get to Aalborg and see the place for yourself. No offense intended.--Ipigott (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Ipigott, no of course I'm not an expert in the field of editing.  I am, however, a long-time editor in this project, with over a dozen FAs and about 20 GAs to my credit, and I've reviewed lots of GAs.  The only reason I'm reviewing this article is because I was asked to, by another editor whom I respect and who has helped me some in the past.  By all accounts, this article hasn't languished in the GAC queue nearly as long as most do, and with its length and complexity, it probably would have done so, and for months.  This isn't FAC, where the requirements are more stringent and the reviewers have more expertise, but I'm not the kind of reviewer who will just let an article pass.  I'm also quite reasonable, and if you make a good faith effort to accept my suggestions and provide me with reasonable explanations about why you disagree, I usually relent.  Of course, I can stop reviewing this article at this point, and you can find another editor who you think is more qualified. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I had a feeling you might be a little upset by my comments. As I have said above and on your talk page, I really appreciate the time and trouble you have been spending on the article's prose. Most of the issues you have raised certainly deserved attention and you will see that I have indeed followed up carefully on nearly all your recommendations. I also appreciated your picking the article up quickly from the GAN queue as a special favor to Dr. B., even if is not the kind of article that would normally interest you. I certainly have no intention of discouraging your completion of the review. All I was hoping is that we can move on fairly quickly now that we have started. Do you think you could find the time to go through the rest of the article over the next couple of days? I would really like to move on to the improvement of other Danish articles, especially Copenhagen, but would like to get this one sorted out first. I see by the way that Hoary, another Brit, has made a number of detailed comments on your talk page and also here. (He has also done a substantial amount of work on the article itself.) I do not want to get bogged down in lengthy discussion about points of grammar myself but appreciate his inputs. You may also be right that the use of "some" with a number occurs too frequently in the article. I'll look at all the instances once again. I know you are working in good faith -- and so am I. I sincerely hope we can continue to work together.--Ipigott (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not upset as much as I'm insulted, to be honest.  Remember, this is a volunteer endeavor, and you attract more flies with honey, as they say.  You've been around here for awhile, Ipigott, but you don't seem all that familiar with GAC.  I suggest that next time you ask another editor with the kind of expertise you want, and that you choose someone with a little bit more time than I have.  The work you've done on Danish articles is commendable and I'm glad that I've been able to help.  Another thing about dealing with volunteers: we're busy and need patience.  If I knew you were on some self-imposed time limitations, I wouldn't have started the review with my RL responsibilities and duties.  I've really only been working on this review this week, since the 15th, and I've put off some of my own projects here.  That being said, I'm busy most of today, but I'll do my best to complete it in the next few days.  I know better what to look for now, so hopefully, it'll go faster. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
My dear Christine, Why on earth should you feel "insulted". I've congratulated you on pinpointing a considerable number of deficiencies in the article, most of which were of my own doing, probably as a result of translation, and now I've been through the whole thing not once, not twice but three times, trying to provide the best possible solutions to the problems you have raised. I too am a volunteer, trying to fit WP in to a strong schedule of other assignments. I am however happy to see that you appreciate the time frame. Pressed for time now. Look forward to more.--Ipigott (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Progress as of 19 September

I've tried to follow up on virtually all the points raised above. Maybe Dr. B. and other editors would like to look things through to ensure I have not removed anything important. I am now awaiting comments from the reviewer on the remainder of the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Major venues

The wording about the Aalborgs Kongres & Kultur Center is a little unclear.  Are the hotel, restaurant, etc. part of the sections of the Aalborg Hall?  Do you have any more information about the sections, and their purpose?  If not, that's fine.
Yes, the hotel, restaurant, etc., are indeed part of the centre. Most people refer to the entire complex as the Aalborg Hall (and that is indeed how it is addressed in the linked article). I looked at the wording again and think it correctly represents the situation. I was thinking of expanding on Aalborg's theatres but this would require more time. There are further explanations about the complex in the linked article.
Is there a link to Europahallen?  Or Julius Petersen?
There is no separate article on Europahallen as it is convered by Aalborghallen which we have already linked to. I had thought of writing a short biography on Julius Petersen but he is not included in the usual and is therefore probably not "notable" enough for Wikipedia.
Churches

After the original tower was destroyed by fire in 1663, an intricately designed Baroque tower, based on that of an earlier Copenhagen city hall, was completed in 1779.  Calling a tower that was completed in the 18th century "new" doesn't feel right to me.  I suggest that you say that it was replaced by the Baroque tower.  And I'd strike "striking".
The tower is architecturally outstanding. I hope my substitution is acceptable.  Done
The carved pulpit is from c. 1581.  Is it correct to use abbreviations like "c."?  If not, I suggest that you re-word: "The pulpit was carved in approximately 1581."
This is certainly the usual way of expressing approximate year dates. Maybe other editors would like to comment on this?
 DoneIt is very common in architectural content and articles yes, but I'll reword to around.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Please link or briefly explain Johannes Group.
 Done
Judiasm

Services ceased after him... Don't you mean that services were no longer offered after Mielziner left or died?
 Done
Anti-semitism still exists today in Denmark, and in 1999, an unlicensed Nazi radio station began operating from a neo-Nazi stronghold in Fynen, Nørresundby, within Aalborg municipality.  Saying something "still exists today" is redundant; how about replacing the phrase with "continues to exist"?  "Within Aalborg municipality" is awkward; how about: "within Aalborg's city limits"?
 Done I reworded still but I disagree with you that within Aalborg municipality is awkward and the city boundaries is not the same as the municipality boundaries anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Education

In 2012, 3,000 new students started at the university. Is this number typical of the incoming freshman class, or is it an increase over previous years?  I ask because both are important and notable; if the typical class is large and/or if there was that much of an increase.
It means what it says, in 2012 3000 new students started at the university, which gives an indication of how many pupils currently enroll at the uni each year, that will suffice IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Final sentence, 1st paragraph: This sentence is too long; I recommend breaking it up.  "Relevant" should have single quotes around it.  I also suggest that you paraphrase it, which would make it more interesting and less dependent upon the source.
 Done Agreed, well spotted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Re: the University College of Northern Denmark: what does "courses of professional relevance" mean?  Please clarify and/or expand.
 Done Removed.
There is also Aalborg Business College.  I believe that this is an expletive sentence, which we should avoid.  How about expanding it by listing the courses they offer, if they're interesting and worth noting.  You could also state "Aalborg Business College has been in existence since ---."
 DoneI've added info about the courses, but I don't know when it was established.
What is a "school camp"?  Is there a link?  Notice that I added the missing article.
A camp for the schools. I think it's clear, pupils are taken to the island and stay at the camp and probably conduct field studies or something. I don't think it needs anything further.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if you should put the last 2 sentences in this paragraph in the next one, since they're about schools for children.
 Done Agreed!
The school does also have a danish department which educates in Danish, like the public schools in Denmark, but in a more ambitious way.  "Does also have" is incorrect, and the first "danish" should be capitalized, unless you're talking about the pastry. ;) How about saying that they "conduct their classes in Danish"?  What does "a more ambitious way" mean?  Please clarify and/or explain.  Also, these statements should be sourced.
 Done Removed that..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Sports

1st sentence, 3rd paragraph: I suggest that you separate this sentence, since it's about two different clubs.
 Done

Link Graham Lockey and Commander John Harris, if possible.
I don't think that they're notable enough for biographical articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll try and come back for more later this evening. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Transport

The original station building was designed by N.P.C. Holsøe and the present building, opened in 1902, by Thomas Arboe.  This wording is confusing, and makes it sound like Arboe opened the present building.  I'd re-word: "The original station building was designed by N.P.C. Holsøe and the present building, which opened in 1902, was designed by Thomas Arboe."
 Done

The inner city as well as the wider urban area is served by regular buses.  What do you mean by "regular buses"?
This must again be a result of British usage as "regular" has a much more precise meaning than in American English. I've rewritten the sentence anyway. Don't want to be too defensive!  Done
Cycling is also popular in Aalborg with 44% of the population using their bicycles several times a week and 27% of the workforce cycling to work (2012 figures).  I'd remove the word "relatively", as 44% could be interpreted differently.  The wording is also a little unclear.  How is "several times a week" and "cycling to work" different?  A work-week could be different in different part of the world.  How many times is several times and how often is cycling to work?  Also, instead of putting "2012 figures" in a parenthesis, I suggest that you incorporate it into the sentence.
I've followed up on some of your suggestions but I think it would be a mistake to over-interpret the information given in the source. I can imagine that many people use their bicycles for shopping, visiting friends, going to school, etc., while the figure relating to the workforce applies only to those who actually have jobs. If you really think it is unclear, then I suggest we simply remove the sentence and let people go back to the source. Partly  Done
Healthcare

Today it consists of two large buildings in Aalborg...  Remember that "today" is too ambiguous.  I recommend saying something like, "As of 2013" or the date of the source.
 Done
Notable people

More recently, the actor and script-writer Preben Kaas (1930–1981) starred in over 50 Danish films.  I think that you need to state if Kass was born in Aalborg or if he was raised there or went to college there or whatever.
Added "who was born in Aalborg" although his background can be seen from the linked biography.  Done
...his iconic Utzon Center now documents and expands on his approach.  What does this mean?  Please explain and/or expand.
 Done
Finished for now.  I'll AGF regarding the sources, but you may want another set of eyes to look at the references before you take it further to FAC.  Thanks to the editing team for being so open to my suggestions.  Complete this final set, and I'll pass it to GA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Done what I can on most of the last set of issues raised. There are still a few on which I have not attached "Done". Perhaps someone else can have a look at these. There are still a number of points to be handled, especially on religion and education.--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I think I've covered them all now. I don't agree with some of your points Christine but you've made some really good points which have really improved this article. I asked you to review this Christine because I suspected that you might do a thorough review and highlight some of the major problems with it, and I think your review has certainly done this. Appreciate you taking the time to do such a decent review. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Dr. B.'s remarks.  You've managed to pick up lots of important points which I would have missed no matter how many times I reread the article. When you know a place well -- as I know Aalborg -- you tend to make a lot of assumptions about the knowledge of your readers. That's why it was good to have someone who was completely new to the subject to do the review. I certainly hope this is a case of "All's well that ends well" and that we can work together again sometime soon.--Ipigott (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, guys.  That's the goal, right--to improve articles and to help each other do that.  I'm glad that I was able to help, even in a small way.  Not all things are smooth, but I'm glad we're all happy with the end result, too.  Ipigott, my 2nd FAC was about a place I've never even stepped foot on--Stanford Memorial Church, but the beauty and history intrigued me so much, I was hooked.  Someday I intend to visit "MemChu", just as now I intend to someday visit Aalborg.  I look forward to seeing more from you both.  Please let me know how I can assist.  I'll go pass this article to GA now.  Congrats, good work by all involved, and good luck. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We read (rhymes with "red", and after markup-stripping):

Nordens Kridtgrav has an area of 12.6 acres (5.10 ha) and is 600 feet (180 m) long and 200 feet (61 m) wide, with a depth of 12 feet (3.7 m) at its deepest point.[33] The chalk cliff around the lake ranges from roughly 10 feet (3.0 m) to 25 feet (7.6 m) in height.[33]
The first thing I noticed about this was that the units were the wrong way around, or anyway in the opposite order to that used elsewhere in the article. The source is this article (by one Hans Christian Andersen), which says something that even to my Danish-ignorant self looks curiously similar:

Søen udgør 12,6 hektar, og er 600 meter lang og 200 meter bred, samt 12 meter dyb på det dybeste sted. Kridtgraven er omkranset af en høj skrænt, som er mellem 10 og 25 meter høj.
Here's what Google Translate did with this when I asked it:

The lake is 12.6 acres and is 600 feet long and 200 feet wide and 12 feet deep at the deepest point. Chalk grave is surrounded by a high cliff, which is between 10 and 25 feet high.
(As its translations aren't static, your kilometrage may vary.) I infer: 

for Google Translate, the conversion rates are:
1 metre = 1 foot
1 hectare = 1 acre
the contributor has been not only using Google Translate (or similar) but trusting it
this isn't just a summary of what Andersen writes; it's a (sadly garbled, would-be) quotation, touched up in places
The last of these can be described as plagiarism. A harsh verdict and a harsh word, I know; but it's pretty clearly an example of the third among the forms of plagiarism listed here.
I'm not going to look through the history of the article to find the contributor, who surely meant well. But I urge the contributor to think very hard. -- Hoary (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with you there. Those sentences are largely based on figures and figures are not easy to re-represent  without "plagiarism". Almost half the words are "plagiarised" numbers. "Nordens Kridtgrav has an area of 12.6 acres (5.10 ha) and is 600 feet (180 m) long and 200 feet (61 m) wide, with a depth of 12 feet (3.7 m) at its deepest point.[33] The chalk cliff around the lake ranges from roughly 10 feet (3.0 m) to 25 feet (7.6 m) in height.[33]" vs "The lake is 12.6 acres and is 600 feet long and 200 feet wide and 12 feet deep at the deepest point. Chalk grave is surrounded by a high cliff, which is between 10 and 25 feet high" is absolutely fine. You try suggesting a better way in which you can convey those figures without it being remotely similar.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
It gets the depth of the grave wrong with 8 meters (its 12 meters not 12 feet). And its size wrong by 16 acres. A Danish hektar is 2,47 acres.  Autotranslation  does not work in GAs.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
And you have how much experience of GAs exactly? The article is almost entirely written by a fluent Danish editor who did not use google translate. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes I know: if you read a terse, fact-filled sentence or two, it's hard to rephrase them other than via additional verbiage. And yes of course the great majority of this article was written by somebody who has no problem with Danish. Its flaws aside, the article is very good. So let's work to zap the flaws. -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
You might want to check the geography section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. But past my bedtime, and therefore not well. (While I like unpretentious language, should "rainfall", near the end, instead be "precipitation", to include snow?) -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of the above-mentioned "experience of GAs": Dr. Blofeld asked me to review this article, and as you can see I've started it, but there's still work being done on it, and I don't want to make suggestions that will become obsolete as changes are made.  (For example, I was planning to comment on the excess verbage in this article, but an editor has fixed much of it.)  Perhaps I should wait a little while until everyone's satisfied that this article is ready for a GA review? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe another day to give a final copyedit would be advisory...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I must say I am rather surprised at the detail given to Nordens Kridtgrav which is certainly not a key feature of Aalborg or its geography. I would suggest the sentence with all the disputed figures would be best left to the day an article on the quarry itself appears -- if it is indeed notable enough. As for the excess verbiage, I'll have a look through the whole thing tomorrow. This is just the kind of excellent feedback the GA process reveals: points that those of us who have been editing the article have simply not borne in mind.--Ipigott (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually the numbers aren't disputed; but I agree with the gist of what you're saying here. -- Hoary (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I've removed this entirely now anyway so it doesn't matter.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

. . . overlooked by St. Mark's Church on the eastern side. Fifty-one species of bird have been recorded in the park.
is the way I'd render it. It's common for style guides to specify the spelling out of numbers when they must appear at the start of sentences. According to WP's beloved MOS: "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out". (Erm [cough] as I look at this section of MOS, I also see various other prescriptions that surprise me and that I've flouted, perhaps in my dehancements to this very article. Ulp.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Because (i) some authors' names weren't specified as they should have been for Template:Cite web, (ii) I remembered the parameters "lastN" and "firstN" but not the parameter "authorN", and (iii) I didn't notice that "authorN" was used in some references, I added "lastN" and "firstN". I even converted at least one instance of "authorN" to "lastN" and "firstN".
It's always struck me as silly that references in Wikipedia's preferred "Vancouver system" (not in alphabetical order of author) should invert authors' names. So I greatly prefer "authorN" and 'm happy to convert back from "lastN" and "firstN" to "authorN" if youse think this is a good idea. -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
PS if the article does retain "lastN" and "firstN", then I'm afraid that Ipigott or somebody else who's familiar with Danish names must check that my divisions into first and last are correct. Sometimes I had to guess. (But again, I'm offering to change the lot to "authorN" if asked.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I see you've done quite a bit of work on all of this. It is indeed extremely difficult to know which is the true last (i.e. family) name of a Dane. You really have to be familiar with the families themselves. For example Klaus Spang Hansen would probably be Spang Hansen, Klaus whereas Hans Jørgen Hansen would no doubt be Hansen, Hans Jørgen. Søren Bitsch Christensen (who comes up in the article) is generally listed in Scandinavian bibliographic sources as Bitsch Christensen, Søren, but unfortunately many English-language listings have him as Christensen, Søren Bitsch. So what do you do??? As far as I can see, there is no easy solution. Let's just leave things as they are for the time being. (Personally I prefer the non-template approach to refs as it is much more straightforward to list names starting with the given or Christian name and going on to the family or surname. Then there's no problem with first and last.)--Ipigott (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
A simple solution would be to convert (A) LastN + FirstN to (B) AuthorN. And I'm offering to do this. In fact, I'll just go ahead and do it, if nobody objects within a day or so. -- Hoary (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
When in doubt, I use WorldCat as my go-by. For example, it shows Søren Bitsch Christensen's surname to be Bitsch Christensen. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a good choice of source. But one hopes that the name appears in WorldCat, and if so then that the librarian who entered the information got it right. ¶ I've converted the template parameters, as I suggested/offered above. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This article contains statistics (population numbers for example) that are (1) unsourced or (2) are not mentioned in the citation given. To do: find new sources, verify existing sources and adjust information. — 37  (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'll check the figures and sources tomorrow. I see Danmarks Statistik has changed its approach.--Ipigott (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Done. The stats for the city include Nørresundby (see Demographics section for explanation).--Ipigott (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Example taken from Oxford dictionary: 
"‘This is a huge advantage of fishing the Baltic: there are so many bays and inlets and fjords that many, many of them have never seen an angler in recent history.’" 
- this sentence wouldn't be possible if only "Norwegian type" fjords are meant. By the way, "Viking" means "(man) from (the) fjord(s)" - and "fjord" has been used in British English, in the same sense as in Scandinavia. In Scandinavia "vik" ("bight" rather than "bay") is a synonym of "fjord". Boeing720 (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look at it and noticed the following:

There's an "Update needed" banner for the politics section from 2022: has this been resolved?
There are some uncited statements.
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
@Ipigott: We put a lot of work into this, worth saving.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I'll take a look at this later. My last effort at updating one of these required considerable time and effort.--Ipigott (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it's tedious chasing up references. There's quite a few needed citations in places too I've just marked, surprising, as I remember in 2013 it being super well sourced. But the standards do increase over time and you get used to no unsourced paragraph endings. I've just added half a dozen or so refs. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for these efforts. I'll see what I can do to improve the article over then next couple of weeks but I need to find time to look into it without disturbances. Can probably get back to it early next week. I actually have close connections with Aalborg as one of our daughters lives there. So I recognize the need for more careful attention.--Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you could as I have a few more GARs to look at now. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Dr. Blofeld: Are either of you, or anyone reading this talk page notice, interested in addressing the above concerns? Z1720 (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Ipigott is busy caring for his wife and I am running a contest at present. 7+6 is thirteen if you can find the citations needed that are left and update the politics section go for it, if not, no worries!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
My editing time is very limited but I'll see what I can do over the next two or three weeks.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
 @Dr. Blofeld and Ipigott: Thanks for your work so far. I think most of the concerns have been resolved so far but just want to get the last few concerns resolved:
There are a couple of citation needed tags in the article. Some I added today, but others are from before.
The "Twin towns – sister cities" section is uncited.
There is still an "update needed" banner on top of the politics section. Is this still valid?
Any interest in resolving these? Of course, there is no obligation and no rush. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I've sorted out the remaining citations. There are communal elections coming up in a few weeks. We currently mention 2023 so the tag isn't necessary now. Best to wait until the new elections are held now, but there shouldn't be anything outstanding which prevents this from remaining a GA. Thanks for being patient. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)