Talk:Skaugum Tunnel/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: GregorB (talk · contribs) 10:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: →

   Some grammar errors/typos ("did not received"), even sentences that don't parse ("Some places water was dripping onto the track which caused it to rust, other places onto electrical equipment."). Prose is otherwise good, so I'd suggest having a copy editor make a pass through the article.

   Amounts in NOK should be accompanied by corresponding amounts in US$ or €.

   History mentions 9.4m of electical conduit. Should this be 9.4km? Bob1960evens (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

   Grammar fixed, 9.4 m fixed, looks good now. GregorB (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

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

   Looks fine overall in this department, with two remarks: 1) the sentence "During construction there was one blasting accident." might be removed from the intro, as it is a non-essential detail, and 2) I'd suggest dividing the "History" section into some subsections ("Construction", "Maintenance issues", or the like).

   Fine in this department. GregorB (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Looks good. All sources seem to be reliable.

   While all the sources are in Norwegian (including ref #1, which is missing the language param), I don't think it would be reasonable to expect English sources on a (relatively minor) subject such as a tunnel in Norway, nor are such sources required. However, I've found this and this, so these sources in English might still be taken into consideration.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: →

   Inline references throughout, all well-formatted. Still, I'd highly recommend that all sources have the "work" and "publisher" params supplied, wherever applicable. Also, ref #9 appears to be dead.

   Ref #9 is now partially supplanted by another ref. Still, some statistics still depend on it. WP:WIAGA explicitly lists "statistics" as a type of content for which "in-line citations from reliable sources" should be provided. However, WP:WIAGA doesn't say anything about the dead links; WP:DEADREF does, but these two taken together still don't provide an answer. I've thought about it and decided as follows: 1) the dead ref stays, tagged with {{dead link}}, 2) the content stays, as it is not controversial and WP:AGF applies, same as it would apply for offline sources such as books, 3) as soon as the link becomes available in a web archive or otherwise, it could still be fixed. Therefore I'm passing the article on criterion 2B. GregorB (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

   None could be found.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Detailed and thorough treatment of the topic.

   B. Focused:

   Stays on topic, no problems with focus.

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems here.

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No problems here.

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   A single map, Commons-supplied, properly described and tagged.

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

   Of course, it would have been nice if the article had a photo of the tunnel, but its benefit would have been marginal anyway. The map is useful.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Placed on hold for copy editing (7 days, as usual). I'll be adding more points today or tomorrow at the latest. GregorB (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

   Done with the initial review. I might still throw in a remark or two. Apart from 1A, I don't see major issues with the GA criteria, so the above remarks should be seen as suggestions. GregorB (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

   That should be everything seen to:

   • Minor copyediting issues seen to
   • I disagree that the should be subsections in the history part. The section is very short and additional sections will not help the reader navigate the article. Also, I fail to see any other logical divide than "planning" and "construction", the former which would give a single-paragraph section, which would be unfortunate.
   • Unfortunately, WP:WEBCITE was down while I was writing this article, but I hope the Wayback Machine will provide a archive url within the next six months.
   • The issue of currency conversion has been discussed before, among other things at FLC, and there is consensus to not covert to other currencies. This is because a currency conversion is inherently subjective, as there would not be a natural currency to convert to (both £, US$ and € would be natural choices), there would be a question as to a which exchange rate to convert (as these fluctuate quite a lot over time) and there is then the question of if they should be inflation adjusted. The article will probably be largely read by Norwegians (most of which are fluent in English) and converting NOK to your preferred currency is an easy task on the Internet.
   • English-language sources have been incorporated as additional refs, although they are very technical and mostly concern geological issues, so I don't think they appropriately replace any other refs, but they make excellent supplements. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

   • The copyedit pass looks good, I'll take another look.
   • Of course, subsections were just a suggestion, not a requirement.
   • Regarding the currency conversion, I tend to disagree with those arguments. The amount in US$ or euros (or GBP, for that matter) is meant as a ballpark, order-of-magnitude figure for an average reader, so it does not need to be super-exact, and the choice of international currency is not important for the same reason. It doesn't matter, though, since the currency conversion was also only a suggestion.
   • There are two minor things left: 1) the suspect 9.4 m figure, per the above comment by Bob1960evens, and 2) is it possible to supplant that dead link somehow (it just so happens that the above mentioned figure is sourced to that ref). GregorB (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

   • Figure fixed, I'm positive that is a m/km error. I've replaced the first part of the Mika ref with another source, but the latter part I cannot find anywhere (the section with a lot of the detailed figures). I can either comment out the section, or leave it with a dead link; I'm a bit uncertain what to do. Thanks for the review, and also thanks to Bob1960evens for the copyedit, it is much appreciated. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

   • Per my comment on the dead ref above, I am passing the article, as I am fully satisfied now that it meets the GA criteria. Good work! GregorB (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.