Talk:Lier Line/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This looks like a reasonable article, but I have a few minor points and comments.

Route -

I'm not sure that this sentence states what it means to say: "As the only line in Norway, no blasting was done during construction.".

I've changed the grammar, but I think that statment aught to have a citation to support it. Pyrotec (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the places mentioned in the text appear on the route diagram, so I'm having trouble following the route. In particular:

Y Pyrotec (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC) - A branch line ran from Iledalen to Tronstad Bruk. It continued across the wooden, 90-meter (300 ft) long bridge over the creek Solbergelva before reaching Sylling.[reply]

Does the main line continue from Iledalen to Sylling, or does the branch line continue from Tronstad Bruk to Sylling?

Y Pyrotec (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC) - I can't follow all the places mentioned in the second paragraph.[reply]

Neither can I, and I've never been to Lier, so all I can do is trust that Aspenberg has it right. The places are all mentioned in the "right order" according to the map, so it should be okay in my opinion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History -

I'm not familiar with the way government works in Norway:

Y Pyrotec (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC) - In the second paragraph, it would be helpful to know why a private company (well the committee) should ask the National Railways (NSB) and the Ministry of Labour for money? Presummably this would now be known as a "social grant"?[reply]
In the third paragraph the parliament gave a grant of NOK 350,800. Is this the NOK 330,000 plus NOK 30,375 mentioned in the second paragraph?

I would presume it was the NOK 330,000 that had been subject to inflation. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC) - In the final paragraph, Tronstad is mentioned, but its not on the route diagram. Is this the same as Tronstad Bruk (also not on the diagram)?[reply]

I don't really know how things worked back then myself, but the difference between a private and public railway wasn't particularly clear. A private railway was usually owned by either a mining company or the local municipalities, but was not operated by NSB. State railways were usually also limited companies, and although controlled by the state, could have some private owners as well. They were always operated by NSB. Eventually the state bought all the companies and merged it all into NSB. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Lead -

This is reasonable, but I suggest:

Y Pyrotec (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC) - The two branches be named (Iledalen to Tronstad Bruk and Sylling to Svangstrand).[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC) - The railway company appears to own the steamer. The lead mentions connection with a steamer, but not that the railway owned it.[reply]

There is no mention of what happened to the steam ship after the railway passenger service stopped.

None of the sources discuss this. Frankly, the Gausemel book was only found after searching the shelves in the basement of the university library for local books from Lier, and it has no real mention of the steamships. Aspenberg is a railfan to his heart, and hardly mentions them either. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My source (Owen, Roy (1996), Norwegian Railways: from Stephenson to high-speed) says "between 1904 and 1926, the company operated its own steamer services from Svangstrand to Sundvolden and Svenrud, a few kilometers south of Honefoss [wrong "o" - has a slash through it]. There was also service to Vikersund". There's a three page bibliography of mostly Norsk-language sources, but it has no citations. Pyrotec (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting the review On Hold at this point. Pyrotec (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I havn't been able to answer half your points, and I'm almost asleep now, so I'll check in again in the morning. But I think I've conformed to all your requests, either by amending the text, answering your questions or just stating that I (and thus the sources) don't know. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, tomorrow's fine. Pyrotec (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting article on a now-closed railway line.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

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

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:
A couple of historical shots.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

As nearlly all of the comments that can be addressed, have been addressed, I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing yet another article on the growing list of Norwegian railway topics.

Thanks for the review. I found a source that had some figures and years for Activ, so I added it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]