Talk:Bergen Line/GA1

GA Review

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

The article appears to be of the right standard to gain GA. Some initial comments:

There appears to be some uncertainty over the name of the railway director. He is named as Carl Abraham Phil, but this is a link to Carl Abraham Pihl.
Its not entirely clear (except from the Infobox) what the gauge is; but about halfway through the article standard gauge is mentioned.
The relationship between the Bergen Line and the Voss Line is not all that clear. It seems that the Bergen Line includes the Voss Line (although the route has been shortened by the construction of a tunnel) and that the Voss Line was originally built as a narrow gauge route.
In the 'Political Process subsection, "ministry" is mentioned without any clarification of which ministry is meant.

I will continue the review and may come back to these points later.Pyrotec (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

The article has the making of a GA, but the following points need addressing:

There appears to be some uncertainty over the name of the railway director. He is named as Carl Abraham Phil, but this "article" is only a link to Carl Abraham Pihl. The name "Phil" appears at various places in the article.
The relationship between the Bergen Line and the Voss Line is not all that clear. It seems that the Bergen Line includes the Voss Line (although the route has been shortened by the construction of a tunnel) and that the Voss Line was originally built as a narrow gauge route. This needs to be clarified in the body of the article and summarised in the WP:Lead.
In the 'Political Process subsection, "ministry" is mentioned without any clarification of which ministry is meant.Pyrotec (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the copyedit :) The mess with Pihl is sorted out (there at one point existed two articles on Wikipedia, one under each name for the same guy, and I was at one point utterly confused about the matter, but it has since been established beyond doubt as to the German spelling). I believe I have clarified the Voss Line and the gauge—do not hesitate to notify me if you feel the rewriting is insufficient. Concerning the ministry, see the post at User:Punkmorten#Transport and Communications equated with Labour for the complexity of the issue, since at the time the Ministry of Labour was responsible for the transport and communications. This is now linked and extended. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Internet searches indicated that Pihl was the correct spelling and that he had a link with the Stephenson's, but nothing citable. I have tracked down a printed source but I don't yet have it. 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

GAR

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
A good number of references

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
A Good Article; also a possible candidate for FAC, but would need more in-line citations.

Congratulations, I'm awarding this article GA.Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]