Talk:Aarhus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aarhus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Aarhus has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 2, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
January 29, 2023	Good article reassessment	Kept

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 12, 2014.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1944 a precision bombing raid on the Gestapo's Aarhus headquarters destroyed all its files?

Current status: Good article

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Denmark Top‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

GAR

Aarhus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept - issues have been addressed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2014. Some uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will look into this over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there are no longer any unreferenced passages in the article. Please let me know, Onegreatjoke, if any further work is needed.--Ipigott (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: There's "In the 1980s the city entered a period of rapid growth[clarification needed]" at the Post-World War II years section and that's it from what i can see. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onegreatjoke: I missed this as it was from 2017. Now OK I hope.--Ipigott (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good. Though I will wait for the opinions of other people Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good article (heh). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't quite understand what exactly needs to be addressed, "Some uncited material" is a very general comment. I'm opposed to just unlisting a GA all of a sudden. It's the easiest route. I think sources in the lead are not necessary, but other than that, at the moment, it looks like a very well-sourced, and indeed, good article. Please be more specific as to what needs to be addressed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spelling = grammar?

in the paragrapgh 'Spelling'

shouldn't it state that either spelling is *orthographically* correct, instead of saying "grammatically"?

-- by the way: why is this article locked?