Talk:Ofotbanen (company)/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) 20:04, 17 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:

   I made some fixes, prose is good enough for GA

   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:

   Link check tool says there is one dead link but it can't be located in the article so reviewer will overlook and pass article.

   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:

Regarding Lead

Looks good. H1nkles (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Operation

• My only concern here is that this is a very current event. The company is immanently going to resume service in February and in fact may have already emerged from bankruptcy. Otherwise this section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Expansion

• Prose, duplicate wording and tense issues in these two sentences, please take a look at them, "Following the establishment of the passenger routes, Ofotbanen launched in early 2004 ambitious plans to expand. 2003 has seen end meet financially, and the company hoped for NOK 30 million in revenue the following year. A private offering was offered for NOK 8 million."
• The wording in this sentence is awkward as well, "2004 gave a revenue of 20 million".
• "when a contract for NOK 30 million to transport 250,000 t (250,000 LT; 280,000 ST) of timber,[31][33] as well as transport to the plant in Halden" transport as well as transport (confusing). H1nkles (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Unionsexpressen

• "The initial price was NOK 422, and travel time is 5 hours 45 minutes." Check your tense here. Past or present? There are other tense issues in this section as you switch from past to present tense. H1nkles (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

• The following links are dead and will need to be addressed: 21, 27, 36, 37, 39, 50, 56, 57, and 75
• Most of the references are in Norwegian so I can't independently verify them, accepted in good faith.
• Format is fine.

Overall review

• For the most part the article is ready to pass. I fixed some minor copy edit stuff, I mentioned some prose that should be addressed.
• You'll need to fix the links before I can pass it.
• Photos are fine, table is good.
• I'll put it on hold and let you take a look at what I've said. H1nkles (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I have addressed all the concerns. Regarding the bankruptcy, there is nothing we can do but wait; I checked today, and there were no news items that indicate that operation has started. Once they do, I will of course add them. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I figured the bankruptcy was still in progress. There still is a dead link according to the link checking tool but I can't find it so I'm going to pass the article. Good job, you're reviewing so many other people's articles, it's time someone reviewed yours. Keep up the good work!!! H1nkles (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)