# Talk:.sj

It really isn't in use, for any reason... at least it wasn't when I looked into it :) +sj + 10:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Uninett.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:.sj/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I made a few minor copy-edits.[1]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
references check out, I assume good faith for those where my Norwegian isn't up to scratch.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It says all that needs to be said
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
OK, short and sweet. I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Arsenikk (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on .sj. 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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65uD75yZV?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sysselmannen.no%2FhovedEnkel.aspx%3Fm%3D45301 to http://www.sysselmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=45301
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65uDDjwpY?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lovdata.no%2Fall%2Ftl-19921127-109-0.html to http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19921127-109-0.html
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) 04:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)