Talk:Akureyri

Akureyri was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 2, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
July 11, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
August 2, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Comments

I think this page needs a total rewrite, or at least total re-structuring. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:19, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

..And i just started to do that, currently it looks like an empty shell with the text not fitting into the catagories, but it's getting there, whats mainly needed first is...

getting some factual information at hagstofa.is and put it in the proper places in the article.
Define what needs to be written, i think there should be at least an article on the Listigarður ( the main park ), the cultural life, the main places to visit, cafés and so on, these stubs could be here first and later moved to another place if someone really wants to write a long piece they can do that, put it in another page and move said stub out of here.
Get lots of pictures, New York, New York should be a standard here.

This sure is an ambitious project, I hope to take an active part in it. :) Biekko 11:38, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities for the basic shell i put in place, we'll probably drop some catagories but it would be nice to fill at least some info in all of them.

About the pictures, i cant take any since i'm abroad right now, it would probably be a good idea to contact the people in charge of akureyri.is and get permission to use those images, i'll do that once i find a email address on the page.

Oh and welcome, and thanks for fixing the link to UNAK;=)

--Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:18, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Just sent the letter to gunnarf at akureyri.is, the email i found in the ISNIC whois database so it might not be the official contact, the letter follows:

Halló.Ég, ásamt öðrum sjálfboðaliðum að skrifa grein um akureyri sem birtist á Wikipedia - Frjálsu alfræðiorðabókinni. það sem er komið þegar sést á slóðinni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akureyri , Textinn á grein þessari er undir "GNU Free Documentation Licence" ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt ).Allavegana, best að koma sér að efninu, Það er nokkrir hlutir sem væri gott en ekki alveg nauðsynlegt að hafa, til dæmis myndir af akureyri. Sem einmitt er svoldið af á akureyri.is heimasíðunni. Sem dæmi þarf þessi grein myndir, sem meðal annars væri gott að fá hjá ykkur. Þetta getur gerst á þrennan máta.1. Þið getið látið okkur fá þær undir GFDL leyfi sem þýðir að þær haldast undir því leyfi, þannig að t.d. ef einhvertíman einhver vildi gefa þær út í bók ásamt þessari grein ( eða með annari ) gæti hann haft þær þar. 2. Þið getið gefið okkur þær undir 'fair use' sem þýðir að við fáum leyfi til að nota þær þarna og hvergi annars staðar. 3. Þið getið neitað.Að svo loknu vil ég biðja þig annaðhvort að gefa okkur leyfi skv. skilmálum nr. 1 en ef það er alls ekki mögulegt nr. 2, ég sé ekki að þetta myndi vera nema gott fyrir bæinn þar sem wikipedia fær um 4.5milljón heimsóknir á mánuði, þó vissulega ekki bara á þessa grein, heldur alla síðuna.Mikilvægt er þó að hafa í huga að þessi grein verður skrifuð af hlutlausu sjónarmiði og yrði alls ekki einhver einhliða auglýsing heldur eins og eitthvað sem væri líklegt til að birtast í alfræðiorðabók ( sem þetta er einmitt ).Sjá: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia fyrir meiri upplýsingar um wikipedia.Með fyrirfram þökk, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

Biekko: I reverted your change about removing the timezone and also the location in standard degrees, the reason for this is that its not some list i made up. It's a standard list from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities ( though, admittedly for a US city ), but a foreigner might not know the timezone.

In any case i think its best to keep to the standard. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:20, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

As you said, the standard is for a US city, there is alot of info there irrelevant to Icelandic towns and info that is perhaps relevant to Icelandic towns is missing, I'm thinking about constituencies, post codes etc. I think that if someone needs to know about the Akureyri time zone they can easily look at the Iceland page. Time zones are not a distinctive characteristic of Icelandic towns, they are all in the same one. We could then just as well add another box to the table to say that the town is in Europe, it just doesn't fit there, this is the standard ICELANDIC town table that we are creating here and I think it should include info that is unique for each town. I'd like to point to city tables such as Stockholm or Oslo that do not follow the proposed US format. And I don't get what is supposed to be where the XXX is now in the global position box. ---Biekko 20:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed about the time zone, you should change that to postcode and perhaps add some other iceland-specific info,

The XXX is a standard degree format, which is standard. dont remove it, i just havent got the absolute position yet,

Ok, find out about Reykjavík as well while you're at it and add it to the table I put in the Reykjavík article. I will add the constituency info to the tables. Perhaps we can think of something more, average temperature or something.

Danm the degrees, i cant find the specific location anyway, lets just use the simple format.

Quick question - Pronounciation

How is Akureyri pronounced?

(Thanks to whoever added a pronounication guide since I asked) 80.193.7.61 00:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add a sound file too except it would be better if a local read it. I have the wrong dialect. Haukur 00:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The local just did. I tried to make it natural and not to exaggerate the accent. --Bjarki 02:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA nominee

This article is much better than the 2004 version (when someone said it needs work). Please help me make it into a GA even if you don't agree that it is so now. I will concentrate on this article for the next few weeks and lay off other articles. User F203 (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
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:
Pass GA.

Try to fix the article by eliminating the big blank white space. Look at the city articles of other cities in different countries for ideas on how to add to this article. TeacherA (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Akureyri/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article was promoted to GA status, but I disagree with its promotion. Issues include:

Insufficient lead: Much of the information in the body is not summarized in the intro (culture, geography, etc.)
Unsourced info and undue weight given to sports clubs, sites of interest, and colleges, which are listed in bulleted form without any elaboration.
The " Transport" is stubby and unsourced.
Not enough sources, and what few sources there are mainly tour-guide-type sites, which are not the most reliable sources out there. Additionally, sources need titles, publishers and last access dates per WP:CITE/ES. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on this. This is not a featured article so let's not be too picky. Instead, let's work together to improve this! User F203 (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I can copy-edit and format, but we need better sources and the article needs to be expanded. I think the best sources will probably be in Icelandic, so you might have to do that part. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 list Done*Insufficient lead: Much of the information in the body is not summarized in the intro (culture, geography, etc.) Done removed some sports club information, added references *Unsourced info and undue weight given to sports clubs, sites of interest, and colleges, which are listed in bulleted form without any elaboration. Done*The " Transport" is stubby and unsourced. Done added more sources, access dates not required for GA, maybe for FA*Not enough sources, and what few sources there are mainly tour-guide-type sites, which are not the most reliable sources out there. Additionally, sources need titles, publishers and last access dates per WP:CITE/ES.

Done I'll still work on this but the basic points raised have been covered. I plan to work on this daily for at least a week. User F203 (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you could get your hands on this book. http://www.port.is/index.php?pid=3 is an introductory website that can be used to source basic information. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The article should definitely not have been promoted in its current state. It fails by far to meet the GA criteria, mostly on completeness and broadness issues -- it's not nearly broad enough. 'Law and government' and 'economy' are mostly just lists, 'personalities' is a single bullet point entry (and I'm not sure what the purpose of the section is, either). 'Sites of interest' is just a bulleted list, 'gymnasia, colleges, and universities' is just a list, and why are gymnasia put in there with schools anyway?

The references section is completely unformatted -- full citation information is needed, not just a URL -- please include author, title, date of publication, publisher, date URL was retrieved. Use the citation templates if this makes it easier.

The lead section is too short. It doesn't provide an accurate summary of the article.

It might help to review both the WP:UKCITIES and WP:USCITY guidelines for input on sections to add. Sorry, there's no generic template for european cities currently, but it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that this article is NOT a GA, and has lots of information missing. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These links are helpful. However, one is geared for the UK. The choices listed are a good start but are not all applicable to Akureyri. For example, climate is not listed but is much more important to the city and why it is different than demographics.User F203 (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that Iceland does not have all the bureaucracy of the US. All this demographic information is tabulated in the US. Making demographic information a requirement hurts non-US cities. Furthermore, the GA criteria does not require demographic information. However, I will look for this and other information. User F203 (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I agree with Dr. Cash's observations above. This article needs substantial work to meet the GA criteria and should not have been listed. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~Review end of May. For the reasons given above by Dabomb87, Dr Cash and Malleus Fatuorum. It is obvious that there were sections that did not comply with WP:verify and one of these appears to have been flagged up after(?) the review with {fact} flags. This GA Reassessment should not be regarded as a poor reflection on the editor who submitted the article to WP:GAN, it was an incompetant review by the initial reviewer. The article can of course be resubmitted to WP:GAN after it has been brought up to standard. P.S. I have tracked down some refs for the RAF, but I may not have them for a week or so. I will add them to the article when I am able to do so.Pyrotec (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow time for corrections and improvements: I'm not sure what the RAF is, Royal Air Force? Anyway, please allow me time to fix the article because it would be very discouraging if I were punished now. If punished, I don't think I would reapply for GA. (punishment is what it is since it was unexpected that GA was given and very saddish if GA were suddenly yanked.) If given the chance but still can't re-write it well enough, then that's better. User F203 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New plan: I will work on this almost daily until 31 May 2009 at which time I will request that the earlier nomination be withdrawn (after all, I submitted the nomination not knowing quite how to do it so I can withdraw the nomination). This article has few people editing it so I doubt there will be objections. User F203 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to withdraw the first nomination. The first nomination (WP:GAN) produced a result: the article was awarded GA status. Several editors beleive that the article should not have been given GA-status, at that time. The purpose of the WP:GAR is to decide what the do about the GA-award. There are three possible decisions: withdraw the GA award; await improvements in the article; and, do nothing (in effect confirm that the article should keep its GA-award). That decision is Dabomb87's and no conclusion has been reached yet. Yes, RAF = Royal Air Force. In response to your comment above I'm happy to await until the end of May.Pyrotec (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is no deadline. I don't mind waiting.~~ (clarified below) Dabomb87 (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this GA reassessment has gone quite a bit longer than normal. I see that improvements are being made, but much more is needed. I will return in five days to give my final verdict. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were the one that said "There is no deadline. I don't mind waiting."Pyrotec (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, and I take the blame for my miscommunication. I should have said that I don't mind waiting more than usual. In my eyes, WP:DEADLINE means that there is no deadline for the article to get better. However, I feel that keeping this article as a GA would provide mixed signals to editors who were looking for examples of GA city articles to take similar articles to GA status. At one end, they would see sourced, well-written and well-developed articles such as Chadderton. On the other end, they would see this article, which is by no means "bad", but it certainly isn't at the same level as the first example. I don't want to insult anybody, but I think we can all agree that it took a lot more effort to bring Chadderton to the level than it took to bring Akureyri to what it is (and I hope nobody takes this in a bad way). Some editors may very well bring !their articles up to the level of Akureyri, and claim that since this article "met GA standards", !their article must also meet GA standards. I don't think we want that much inconsistency in our GAs. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did the WP:GAN assessment on Chadderton in January 2009, so I know how much work other editors put into it; and I happen to concur that Akureyri is still not at GA-level.Pyrotec (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow extra time as long as people are editing it. Looking back from 1/1/2009 to present, it's much better. Having a paper re-graded from B (if A=FA) to D (assuming F=deletion) is very discouraging and may cause some editors to give up. Please, please, please! If editors become discouraged, then this article could conceivable sit for months or years with little or no improvement. Please don't be the bomb! User F203 (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that your logic is correct. It was graded as a B-class article WP Iceland article, it was then put up at WP:GAN and was (mis)graded as GA-class; and time has been given to bring it up to the necessary GA-standard. If it is regarded at WP:GAR as being unsatisfactory as a GA-class article, it goes back to being a B-class WP Iceland article (and a former GA-class article).Pyrotec (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment confuses B-class with the conversational grading of things. Sorry that the analogy caused confusion. User F203 (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the GA is lost then I will not apply for it because it would look like fighting. If there's no real chance for GA, then the desire to fix it is much less. There isn't a sufficient number of other editors working on this so it could rot. The encouragement to improve by having an open GA reassessment is ok with me. Having the bomb go boom is not fun. User F203 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be brutally honest (and please don't be too offended), this article never met GA standards, and despite the improvements, it still has a ways to go. I hope you won't take reassessment as a signal to stop woriking the article. If you don't feel comfortable in asking if this is GA status later, you can ask somebody else to give you their opinion. GA can be "taken away", but it can also be returned. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The primary editor requested that I give him/her until July 5 to fix the article before GA status is reassessed. I have allowed them to do so. This is not me "backing out" or being pushed around at other editors' whims, but of my willingness to assume good faith that the article can be brought to GA standards in the allotted time. I will make no more extensions afterward. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this is not being pushed around. The only objective of WP is article writing. This extension will help this goal. The article doesn't have heavy traffic and there is no FA star so the time extension hurts nobody. Thank you! User F203 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

"Commerce and service industries grew to be the primary employers in Akureyri as the manufacturing industries started to decline in the 1990s. Jón Sveinsson, a popular author of children's books, was born in Akureyri and died in 1944." Needs a source.
"The town was previously the site of fishing processing. The town is located on the southern part of the island." Source?
The "Crime" section paragraphs should be combined.
"Large churches include the Akureyrarkirkja (The church of Akureyri) and Glerárkirkja: (The church of Glerá)." Needs a source. Also, the paragraphs in the "Cityscape" section could be combined.
"Law and government" is unsourced.
First paragraph of "Utilities" is unsourced.
External links goes after references.
Not a requirement, but you should probably put in publishers and titles for the web references. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoneThese have been addressed except the last. However, a big final push will be done this weekend as mentioned to Dabomb87. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CHECKLIST

Good article criteria (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria)

ARTICLE: Akureyri

What is a good article?

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

1. Done, all 6 areas of the MOS followed. Note that GA does NOT require compliance with the entire MOS, though an effort has been done to comply.

2. Done

3. Done. also compared sections to other GA city articles to insure all usual sections included

4. Done

5. Done

6. Done

What is not a good article?

Lists, portals, sounds, and images: these items should be nominated for featured list, featured portal, featured sounds, and featured picture status respectively.
Disambiguation pages and stubs: these pages cannot meet the criteria.
Featured articles: a good article loses its status once it is promoted to a featured article.

1st disqualification: Done (passes)
2nd disqualification: Done (passes)
3rd disqualification: Done (passes)

Suggestions

Dabomb87

Issues include:

Done (fixed) *Insufficient lead: Much of the information in the body is not summarized in the intro (culture, geography, etc.)

Done (fixed) *Unsourced info and undue weight given to sports clubs, sites of interest, and colleges, which are listed in bulleted form without any elaboration.

Done (fixed) *The " Transport" is stubby and unsourced.

Done (fixed, a substantial number of non-tour sites added, access dates added, format of references standardized even though not a requirement for GA, but probably a requirement for FA)*Not enough sources, and what few sources there are mainly tour-guide-type sites, which are not the most reliable sources out there. Additionally, sources need titles, publishers and last access dates per WP:CITE/ES. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC) NOTE: This edit was copied from comments left by Dabomb87 on the article talk page.[reply]

Final assessment

I have decided to close this individual GAR as a "keep" and start a community reassessment. I see that a lot of work has been done to improve this, but I want multiple opinions, as I have several lingering questions. Compared to other GA city articles, this is much smaller. I do understand that this article is about a small Icelandic town, as opposed to a American or English, which will have many more available sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community reassessment

Contributions to improving this article so that it is not delisted by community reassessment would be most welcome. Geometry guy 00:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golf court not northernmost

There is an 18 hole golf courth near Tromsø, and another one in Skjomen in Narvik, both these are well north of the Arctic circle and thus well north of Iceland. For verification, see Tromsø golf court here: http://www.tromsogolf.com/gb.asp Thus, article must changed. Orcaborealis (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, since it was unsourced. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Akureyri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Akureyri. 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:

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) 02:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akureyri. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160121194150/http://www.res.is to http://www.res.is/

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) 19:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Akureyri. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Csc

Akureyri is at the head of a long fjord which gives it a continental microclimate which would not show on small-scale maps. The Oct. precipitation is 58 mm, the May precipitation is 19.3 mm - 19.3x3=57.9<58...Akureyri is Csc. 24.108.58.49 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Akureyri. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Csc climate

It has a dry “spring” not summer.

I don’t think it’s considered as dry summer Mediterranean. דולב חולב (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July,August and September, (the main summer months) all has more than 30mm on average. I would say, it simply has an unexplainable dry spring. דולב חולב (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The summer in terms of classification is actually the high-Sun half of the year, which is roughly from April to September. It’s not summer in a general aspect.PAper GOL (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand….

But still I don’t think it fits the dry summer designation. דולב חולב (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compare May and June with December, you see why it has such designation.

You can also look at precipitation days. Barely 5 or 6 days in May/June but close to 12 days January.PAper GOL (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Quick question - Pronounciation

GA nominee

GA Review

GA Reassessment

What is a good article?

What is not a good article?

Other articles

Suggestions

Dabomb87

Final assessment

Community reassessment

Golf court not northernmost

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Climate Csc

External links modified

Csc climate