Talk:Forskningsparken station/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   • History "At first, Blindern was considered to be the best transfer point, but it was later decided that creating an all-new station would be better." - Better how? Would it "provide more efficient transfers"? If it was "better" I think we need to know why, otherwise it is fine to just simply state it was decided to be built there instead.
   • History "There were complaints from local residents that the increased traffic on the line was causing too much noise, and neighbors demanded that noise shields be built." - Were the noise shields ever built?

   This one is still an issue, but I'm willing to let it slide due to a lack of information. I would suggest further research and adding this info at some point in the future. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Facilities "Both stations are open, but have sheds in each direction. They were drawn by Arkitektskap." - Who is Arkitektskap? Also, these two sentences could be combined for better readability.

   B. MoS compliance:

   • Intro The introduction is a little weak. The article itself is not that big, but there should be some mention of interesting or notable points from the history, facilities, and service sections. You don't need to add too much, just a few more sentences will suffice. Please see WP:LEAD for more info.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   • References The link to ref number 15 is broken.

   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:

   Article placed on hold until issues can be addressed. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry for the late reply—I've been away on a short holiday. I have adressed all the issues except the noise shields. Despite looking for it, I could not find any news on either construction or non-constructions. I would presume it was built, but I cannot be 100% sure. I am not quite sure how to formulate this without leaving the reader with a question, and not knowing the answer myself. I still find it important to include since the matter was the main objection to building the station. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well-done. Article passed. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)