Talk:Meråker Line/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The first external link deadlinks.
   • The lead could stand to be a bit longer. It's on the scant side for an article of this length.
   • Lead, "thus cutting the Meråker Line's distance from 106 km (66 mi)." From 106 km to what?
   • Fourth paragraph, Background section, "and many Trondheim patriots chose to". Why "patriots"?

   • "Patriots" is what was used in the source, but I see the point and changed the wording.

   • First paragraph, Construction section, "This created a major hassle for people in Stjørdal,". "Major hassle" is unencyclopedic.
   • The first years section, there are a bunch of redlinks. Are all of these notable enough to have their own articles at some point? If not, please delink them.

   • Yes, these are all notable to have articles. However, I do not have reliable sources for them, not even enough to make a stub about them.

   • First paragraph, The first years section, "From 1883, NSB's other two Class 14 locomotives". Should this be "In 1883"?
   • First paragraph, Impact section, "gave good times for agriculture". "Gave good times" is unencyclopedic and oddly worded.
   • Second paragraph, World War I and beyond, "and in a greater extend passengers and freight were". I'm not sure what is meant by "greater extend passengers".
   • Same, "with various train turning at different stations." I'm not sure what is meant by "various train turning".
   • Third paragraph, Post-war section. Please put this in chronological order. It's confusing when it starts out with 2007, then goes backwards to 2006 and 2005.
   • What would you think of changing the Operations to "Current operations" since those are the only thing it discusses. Past operations are discussed in the previous sections, and I think it may be good to have something in the header telling readers that this section is only discussing the operations happening today.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Ref 21 ("Meråkerbanen 125 år") deadlinks.
   • Refs 27 and 28 (Trønder-Avisa) deadlink.
   • Refs 30 & 31 (which should be combined, because they're the same work) deadlink.
   • Ref 32 ("Meråkerbanen") deadlinks.
   • The second item in the Bibliography (Norwegian National Rail Administration) deadlinks.
   • Please make sure that all refs not in English are marked as such. For example, Ref 2 is not in English but is not marked.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A nice article, but with a few prose and referencing issues, so I am placing the review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I helped fixing the references. As for the case of the 30-31 double, my guess is that the article author copied the syntax of ref 31 but forgot to change the parameters. At least another reference should be placed where ref 30 used to be, as Aktuell mentions neither Hommelvik nor the Di 8 and CD66. Punkmorten (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review (and Punkmorten for the referencing). Sorry for taking a long time to reply, but real life has been very busy the last week. I have fixed the prose issues (thank you for the good feedback) and hope the references are in order now. - Arsenikk

Things are looking good so far. There are still a few prose issues that need to be taken care of, though - I'm not sure if they were just missed or if there was a disagreement with my analysis. I've struck through the issues that I feel to be completed. Dana boomer (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for missing those parts. Hopefully it is all good now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 06:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)