Talk:Nortraship

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Corrected correction of date 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Peer Reviewe and Good Article status