When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.
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):
Watch tense here, "Each trains has..." I assume it's a typo, please correct.
This sentence, "Up to four units can be multiple run, though they are most commonly operated single or as double sets." isn't clear, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Wording in this sentence, "The units are built in such a way that they cannot be split up without a large hassle," a "large hassle" is a bit unencyclopedic, consider rewording.
H1nkles (
talk)
19:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)reply
"Several deaths have taken place on the route, but only one due to an accident. In 1999, an employee of the Norwegian National Rail Administration was killed by a train because it was operating at 160 kilometres per hour (99 mph) instead of the temporarily reduced limit of 80 kilometres per hour (50 mph);" Why would this cause someone's death if the trains are capable of going up to 210 km/h? What were the reasons for the reduction in speed in this instance? Unless I'm misunderstanding the statement this needs to be explained a little better.
H1nkles (
talk)
19:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Regarding references
All the links check out ok.
I can't verify content because I don't speak Norwegian, any English references?
Overall Review
The article is good.
Photos check out.
Prose is ok, I made some minor fixes and suggested some more fixes above.
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have applied all your suggested changes; I hope the article is a little more understandable now. Concerning the lack of English sources, there are very few reliable sources around in English for rail transport in Norway. The few times I find them, I of course add them. Unfortunately, the main sources are domestic newspapers and magazine articles. Arsenikk(talk)21:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)reply
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.
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):
Watch tense here, "Each trains has..." I assume it's a typo, please correct.
This sentence, "Up to four units can be multiple run, though they are most commonly operated single or as double sets." isn't clear, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Wording in this sentence, "The units are built in such a way that they cannot be split up without a large hassle," a "large hassle" is a bit unencyclopedic, consider rewording.
H1nkles (
talk)
19:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)reply
"Several deaths have taken place on the route, but only one due to an accident. In 1999, an employee of the Norwegian National Rail Administration was killed by a train because it was operating at 160 kilometres per hour (99 mph) instead of the temporarily reduced limit of 80 kilometres per hour (50 mph);" Why would this cause someone's death if the trains are capable of going up to 210 km/h? What were the reasons for the reduction in speed in this instance? Unless I'm misunderstanding the statement this needs to be explained a little better.
H1nkles (
talk)
19:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Regarding references
All the links check out ok.
I can't verify content because I don't speak Norwegian, any English references?
Overall Review
The article is good.
Photos check out.
Prose is ok, I made some minor fixes and suggested some more fixes above.
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have applied all your suggested changes; I hope the article is a little more understandable now. Concerning the lack of English sources, there are very few reliable sources around in English for rail transport in Norway. The few times I find them, I of course add them. Unfortunately, the main sources are domestic newspapers and magazine articles. Arsenikk(talk)21:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)reply