Talk:Follo Line/GA2

GA Review

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

Starting review. Checking quick fail criteria. ✗ Fail

I have to fail this article for GA status as it is a clear example of WP:CRYSTAL. As construction is not expected to start until 2013 apparently, I feel that this is too far in the future. Cited references are in Norwegian and thus unverifiable. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. However, I strongly disagree with your statements. Concerning violation of WP:CRYSTAL, the policy states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Could you explain to me what part of the policy the article violates? The entire article is verifiable through media reports, government documents and documents produced by DNV, one of the worlds most reliable third parties. The amount of detailed government reports and media coverage clearly establish notability, per WP:N. As for verifiablility, WP:V states: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly." Again, the article fully meets the criteria. Just like there is no requirement that all sources are online, there never has ever been a requirement that souces must be in English. You cannot just invent policy or GA criteria when reviewing articles. Hopefully, there has only been a misunderstanding, and a full review can be conducted. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As posted at WP:GAR I am happy to reinstate the nomination if you so wish, but I personally will not review this or any other article containing mostly references to foreign language sources which I cannot check or to articles about projects four years in the future. Cheers, Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)