Talk:NSB Class 71/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Take a look at my corrections, just a few minor things.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article is good, meets GA criteria.

Regarding Lead

Lead is good no problems.

Regarding Specifications

• Watch tense here, "Each trains has..." I assume it's a typo, please correct.
• This sentence, "Up to four units can be multiple run, though they are most commonly operated single or as double sets." isn't clear, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
• Wording in this sentence, "The units are built in such a way that they cannot be split up without a large hassle," a "large hassle" is a bit unencyclopedic, consider rewording. H1nkles (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding History

• "after NSB had received bids from ABB (that would merged to become ADtranz", merge with what? Also change "merged" to "merge". H1nkles (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Incidents

• "Several deaths have taken place on the route, but only one due to an accident. In 1999, an employee of the Norwegian National Rail Administration was killed by a train because it was operating at 160 kilometres per hour (99 mph) instead of the temporarily reduced limit of 80 kilometres per hour (50 mph);" Why would this cause someone's death if the trains are capable of going up to 210 km/h? What were the reasons for the reduction in speed in this instance? Unless I'm misunderstanding the statement this needs to be explained a little better. H1nkles (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding references

• All the links check out ok.
• I can't verify content because I don't speak Norwegian, any English references?

Overall Review

• The article is good.
• Photos check out.
• Prose is ok, I made some minor fixes and suggested some more fixes above.
• Coverage is comprehensive.
• MoS is good as well.
• I will go ahead and pass the article as is, please consider my remarks and make changes as you see fit. Thanks and well done. H1nkles (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have applied all your suggested changes; I hope the article is a little more understandable now. Concerning the lack of English sources, there are very few reliable sources around in English for rail transport in Norway. The few times I find them, I of course add them. Unfortunately, the main sources are domestic newspapers and magazine articles. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is understandable that there would be a lack of English sources on such a topic. Keep up the good work! H1nkles (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)