Talk:Vy Gjøvikbanen/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

The article is comprehensive and well-referenced, albeit many of the references are in Norsk. It appears to have a good possibility of making GA fairly smoothly; but, I need to do a detailed review first before confirming this.Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to clarify the services in Operations: One train every 40 minutes. One in three goes to Hakadal and two in three to Jaren - and these are Oslo Commuter Rail which seems clear enough. We then have one in three (?) or does this mean the third service at two-hour intervals, are regional trains are to Gjøvik. Pyrotec (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I am sorry about all the foreign-language references, but I like thinking I am making information currently only available to the lucky 5 million Norwegian speakers, available to "the whole world" (or at least the 15% English speakers, minus those without Internet) Unfortunetly, very little detail is available in English at trains in Norway, and the English Wikipedia has probably become the most extensive catalogue of Norwegian train information in the world :) To the point: I have rewritten the entire paragraph, and hope it is better. Below is a "idiot-proof" list the make sure I got it all right. Okay, for each two hours, there are three trains that leave Oslo S. They go each 40 minutes, but serve three different schedules:

1. Serves all stations until Hakadal, and stops there.
2. Serves all stations until Hakadal, and then continues, serving all stations, until Jaren. Stops.
3. Makes a limited number of stops via Hakadal until Gran. From Gran, it makes all stops, including at Jaren, but continues all the way to the end of the line at Gjøvik

• In addition, a limited number of rush-hour trains 1) and 2) continue from Oslo S to Skøyen. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I understand it now (I hope).Pyrotec (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The main problem appears to be compliance with WP:Verify:

• Operations - ref 2 appears to confirm an office at Jaren (2nd sentence); but not the outsourcing statement, where it is cited.

• This was from a newspaper article I seem to have left out the refs for. Found it after a bit, though I cut out the outsorucing sentence, since I could not find the ref for it.

• Rolling stock - I added a ref to the first para, but the Danske Statsbaner refurbishment is unreferenced. In the 2nd paragraph ref 6 is broken. [Ref 8 is bilingual - excellent].

• Seems like ref 5 and 6 were the same. This was a thorough article on the whole refurbishment, and contained all the information, starting with the Danske Statsbaner sentence. The news page was up two weeks ago, but it does not seem to work now (seems like most of the Oppland Arbeiderblad articles do not work today). I have found it in a [proprietary] news search engine I have through my university, meaning it was also published in the printed version that day. I am therefore merging the two refs, and making them offline. Hope that is kosher enough for you. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Background - I don't like "least trafficked commuter train services" could that be expressed as "commuter train services with the least traffic (or train services, or passengers?)"?

• Comes from living too long in Norway. How about ridership? Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't like that either, but I could accept "passengers", e.g => "commuter train services with the lowest number of passenger(or ...least passengers.)".Pyrotec (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• * I'm stopping at this point, there may be some more points later.Pyrotec (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to learn Norwegian at one time. I bought a dictionary in 1983 and some audio tapes, but I never got round to learning it. It looks like I'll need to pass the article.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A good article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   I managed to add a few English-language reference; more would be very nice.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations, I'm awarding GA.Pyrotec (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)