Talk:Røa Line/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

This article is generally of GA-standard, but there are a few minor points that need to be clarified first. As usual, I will leave any comments on the WP:Lead until last; and I will only comment at this point on sections/subsections with perceived "problems".

• History -
  • Establishment -

• In view of what appears in the WP:lead and the route map, it is not clear what is meant by "...(KES) established a tramway to Majorstuen in 1894". Did this tramway run from somewhere need the centre of Oslo to Majorstuen, or Smestad to Majorstuen? It seems it did not go to the centre of Oslo, as there was a clause that enabled municipality retained the right to purchase the line, and the route to the Avenue was not yet built.

• Specified. Yes, it did run from the city center. Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Establishment & Nationaltheatret expansion -

• The "line was owned by A/S Smedstadbanen", but "A. S. Guldberg, Iver Lycke, W. Munthes-Kaas and H. A. Mørk gained the concession to build a tramway .....then transferred their rights to the municipality"; and, "the municipality was planning to start its own tram company, Akersbanerne, and the Smestad Line was considered as part of the network, along with the planned Sognsvann Line.". I am beginning to conclude that the municipality owned A/S Smedstadbanen, but Nationaltheatret expansion can be read as the municipality decided to purchase the Holmenkollen Line.

• This should have been explained better now. The municipality owned Smestadbanen, and later merged it with Holmenkolbanen. Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the rest of the article, so I'm putting the review On Hold at this point. Pyrotec (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. These are just the sorts of things which needs a second pair of eyes. Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An informative, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   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:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an informative article. Pyrotec (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)