Talk:Jæren Commuter Rail/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kyteto (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I thought that this nomination has waited long enough, and that it is close enough to the kind of articles I've edited before, so I would take it through its reviewing. It looks promising, I've already made some initial wording edits as I've read through, I'll get around to compiling the formal checklist (as well as learning more on how to do that) sometime in the next few days. Kyteto (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I've made a few prose adjustments to improve the wording in several places, you may want to check this hasn't changed the meaning from the original translation. Kyteto (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I've marked one paragraph our for a reference, just for clarification purposes (I understand where the infromation is sourced from, but other users might not, maybe a crossref from existing refs would tie it up nicer?)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Some of the grammatical oddities come from using a pinch of Norwegian grammar in the translation process (reading one language and writing another, even if their both native tongues, sometimes messes things up). I've added the refs in the firs paragraph. I agree that it is a better way to reference, even if they are repeated. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am marking this as passed. The quality exhibited deserves this. If you desire to further improve the article, I do have an informal suggestion of my own; the early history of previous passenger servies in the railway line could be covered in History, but I am not sure how well documented these were. It'd be nice to know if it was previously an important commuter line in the early half of the last century, or such, to draw a parellel with today's renaissance. Other than that, I have no futher suggestions for enhancement. Well done. Kyteto (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]