Talk:NSB El 9/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Starstriker7^(Talk) 16:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this article in a bit. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 16:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 1 (clear/concise prose; good spelling/grammar; compliance w/ MOS guides on lead, layout, W2W, fiction, and list incorporation)

Lead

• "NSB El 9 is a class of three electric locomotives built" - Wouldn't it make more sense to denote this class as retired as early as this first sentence?
  • Excellent idea. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• "1947 after a three-year delay caused by wartime sabotage." - Some mention of Norway's occupation by Nazi Germany should probably be included here.
  • Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

History

• "Because of theAllied" - Insert a space.
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• You should make it more clear that Norway had been invaded and occupied by the Nazis at this time to give some context.
  • Added some more juice. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• "and in part because the head engineer for the project disappeared during late 1944." - Can you find his name anywhere?
  • It was not mentioned in the source, and I doubt there is any other conceivable way of finding it out. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Specifications

• You switch between present and past tense quite a bit in the second paragraph. As there are still trains in existence, you should use present tense.
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 2 (all info cited w/ inline citations, arranged in ref section; challengeable stuff cited by reliable sources; NOR)

Most of these articles are not in English and are offline. However, based on similar presently-GA articles, I think I can accept this in good faith.

Criterion 3 (covers all main aspects of topic; focused)

This one is fulfilled well, in my opinion.

Criterion 4 (no undue weight)

It looks neutral to me.

Criterion 5 (stable)

Edit history looks good!

Criterion 6 (images tagged w/ copyright status; fair use images have rationale; images/captions relevant)

• I think the only real comment I have is a nitpicky grammar issue in the captions. I'd make them the same, either as full sentences or as fragments (like the first image's caption).
  • Yes, I see what you mean. I made both of them sentences and added a period. Good spot. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Overall comments

Whoa, you responded pretty quickly! You didn't even give me a chance to finish the review. :) In any case, congrats on building up this article! I just have that one last nitpick in the captions, and then I'll pass this at GAN. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 20:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've fixed up the last thing. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, Arsenikk. I'm passing the article now. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 22:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)