This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• The ribbon of images down the righthand side of the article is causing layout problems. I'd suggest using a table format to fix that, as in this example, or reducing the number of images.

• The left-aligned image of the historian Martin Weibull is squeezing the text between it and the right-aligned image opposite, and overwriting the text behind it.

• The first, third, and fifth paragraphs of Scanian regionalism are uncited.

• References in popular culture is entirely uncited.

• The second paragraph of Modern usage needs to be cited.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing and for your own fixes to the article. It was a fair review in my opinion, and I agree with the issues you mention.

• I can fix the layout, unless some of the more involved editors do it first. I'll wait for a few days.
• The sections that need referencing should be referenced by those who wrote them. If they don't, I'll try to find some references for the sections, and if I can't find any, I'll remove or rewrite the sections accordingly.
• "References in popular culture" could be deleted, in my opinion. Whether "Skåneland" in popular culture just refers to the Scanian area or to the larger territory is hard to know. I also don't find the mention in popular culture to be of particular interest. However, if this sections gets referenced, it could remain.

Fred-J 15:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fair review indeed, and I think your task force is doing a good and very important work.

• Do we really need so many images in the article? Three maps from roughly the same period depicting the same land area. I'll keep Image:Scaniaemap.jpg because it has the highest resolution and detail. I'll remove some more images and try to fix the layout problems.
• The "References in popular culture" section feels unnecessary and incomplete, I don't mind if it's removed from the article.

--Krm500 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I removed the "Reference in popular culture" section. I think the images look alright now, good job with that.

The only book I have on Skåne in one by Ingvar Andersson that covers the time 1200-1500 so the references I add come from whatever I find on the internet.

To reviewer: If there is particular statements that need references, could you add "cite"-tag for it?

Fred-J 20:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's really only one area where I think a further citation is needed, Bornholm Rebellion, so I've added a {{fact}} tag for that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks very much to everyone for the work that's been done on this article. I'm closing this review now as a keep. It's a very nice article, you've done your subject proud. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]