Talk:Oslo Metro/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:Oslo T-bane/GA1)
GA Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- In the Suburban lines in the west section, "In 1872", "By 1875", "In 1894", "In 1912" it would be best if there was a comma placed after 1872, 1875, 1894, and 1912. Same thing goes in the T-bane and One tunnel sections. In the One tunnel section, this sentence ---> "In 2004 construction caused a tunnel to collapse on the Grorud Line", instead of repeating "In...", add the following year, since it was the year that followed 2003.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- 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):
- Does Reference 16 cover all this ---> "The eastern network was extended from Jernbanetorget to Sentrum in 1977, but had to close in 1983 due to leakages. When it opened again in 1987, a the west network tunnel had also been extended to the station, that opened as Stortinget. Through services were not possible at the time because of incompatible signaling- and power equipment. Not until 1993 did the first trains run through the station, after the Sognsvann Line had been rebuilt to "metro standard"; the Røa Line followed in 1995"?
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review.
- 1a) Done (hope I catched them all).
- 1b) Done.
- 2a) Please correct me if I am wrong, but all the books use {{cite book}}. Everything else is a website or a report.
- If it is, then wouldn't this be referencing a book source ---> <ref>Aspenberg, 1994: 6</ref>? If not, then that's my bad in that part. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- There are two sections to the referencing: the inline part in under "notes" (that thus transcludes the {{reflist}}) and the second section is "references" that references all two books used (which uses {{cite book}}. This is inline with WP:CITE—actually, it is how WP:CITE is cited ;) Arsenikk (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- If it is, then wouldn't this be referencing a book source ---> <ref>Aspenberg, 1994: 6</ref>? If not, then that's my bad in that part. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- 2b) The book is built up thematically instead of chronologically—and focuses on the tramway rather than the T-bane. So yes, this is all from one page in the book. But it was still a good question. Arsenikk (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)