Talk:Kristiania Sporveisselskab

Kristiania Sporveisselskab was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 16, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 23, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Kristiania Sporveisselskab (pictured) established the first tramway in Oslo, Norway, in 1875?

Trains: Streetcars Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	September 26, 2008

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars.

Norway

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kristiania Sporveisselskab/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting GAR. Pyrotec (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Hold

1. This article is not particularly easy to read and the grammar needs cleaning up (I'm willing to help in this matter).

2. What this article needs, at present, are route diagrams to clarify where the three competitors are running services.

3. More images would help enhance the article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I will look into the matters, but it may take a few days to locate images and create a route diagram. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested one, or more route diagram(s) as a means of enhancing the article, however a "map" would serve the same purpose and might be easier to produce if there is uncertainty over the stops on the route. Some articles on railways, e.g. Ffestiniog Railway, Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway and Talyllyn Railway, in the UK, but there are others, use stylised "maps", so another possibility is to take a stylised immage of Oslo, such as this one -

and sketch the lines on it. Pyrotec (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find a map, but failed, in part because the copyright of any contemporary map has not yet expired. I have no software to create map images, so I have instead opted for a somewhat simplified schematic diagram, based on the BS system. Hope this settles the matter—if not I can enquirer further. Sorry for this taking so long. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is an improvement, but I am still having difficulty identifying all the lines. In respect of the History section, the schematic does not show:

the Stortorvet to Homansbyen line,
the short-lived direct Homanbyen to the station line,
what later became the Homansbyen to Oslo line.

The grammar needs improving and I am working on it at the moment; and there is not much in the way of references - is Aspenberg the only one available? Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article was probably submitted before it was ready for GAR - significant progress has been made, but more is needed.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Improvements are needed to both the grammar and the clarity. The addition of route schematics has helped clarify the grammar, but not all the routes mentioned in the text appear within the route diagram.

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
This article is mostly based on a single source: a Norsk book - is this the only source available?

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Not known

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
The "end of the company" is not covered other than in the WP:Lead

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:
This article can be resubmitted at a latter date; not much progress has been made recently, and it is not clear that a further extension of the "On hold" is justified.