Talk:Common Tunnel/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 20:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I have made a number of copy-edits, but word choice is still poor. I think a thorough copy-edit is necessary.
 * Consistency: US English spelling is used, but dates are in British English format.
 * Service has Each service has a 15-minute headway, but East end has The permitted headway on the common section was set to 90 seconds, compared to 120 seconds on the branch lines.
 * Both municipalities wanted the redemption right, but this was given to the state What does this mean?
 * In 1925, Holmenkolbanen was found not guilty in the lawsuit regarding the damage to the nearby properties, but later on: On 16 May 1931, the Supreme Court found Holmenkolbanen guilty in the lawsuit regarding the real estate damage. needs further explanation - was this on appeal?
 * Yes, the case was appealed in the Supreme Court. I've tried to clarify this, with reference, though the grammar in the text I added wasn't too good. :( -- Eisfbnore  &bull; talk  18:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As stated above the prose is very poor and the whole needs rewriting in good plain English.
 * Although changes have been made there are still a number of problems with the prose.
 * Nationaltheatret offers shorter transfer distance Sure missing a preposition.
 *  the Holmenkollen Line was opened as a light rail between Majorstuen Surely something like a "light rail line"
 * They could sign trackage rights withKristiania Elektriske Sporvei to usethe Briskeby Line to reach the city center. Shoddy.
 * On 9 June 1911, the city council had nonetheless changed its mind, and voted to accept the tunnel if the terminus was moved to the intersection of Karl Johans gate and Ruseløkkveien, but this was rejected by the company.[7] On 27 May 1909, Aker Municipal Council voted in favor of the tunnel, and on 9 June 1911 the proposal was passed by the Parliament of Norway. Just about suffices as a bare statement of fact, but why did they change their minds?
 * Construction on the central parts of the tunnel started in 1912. "on"?
 * In 1915, the city launched a competition for a plan for city's light rail system. However, the invitations were not issued until two years later. Why the delay?
 * Really this is very poor. Please get your prose copy-edited by someone with a good command of plain English before nominating in the future.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Inconsistency in citations: All Norwegian or other foreign language sources need to have the language in the citation.
 * The article appears to be well cited and I assume good faith for off-line and Norwegian sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article appears to cover the subject well and is focussed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Captions: Two MX3000 trains at Majorstuen, which is proposed moved eastwards to an underground location is poor prose; also Now retired T1300 train at Jernbanetorget; licensing OK
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, this article needs to be rewritten in good plain English. At present the prose is rather poor. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The prose is still very poor throughout with poor word choice and phrasing. Thus it does not meet the GA criteria and so i will not be listing at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but I managed to lose my first attempt at a copyedit and was a bit dismayed. Anyhow, I've done it again and hopefully it is much better. I agree that the prose was not that great in this article, although I'm a bit uncertain why. I've addressed all your specific points, although I retain the use of date formatting, in part because it is the date formatting I always use, in part because it is a formatting also used in the US and Canada (although less common than month first), and most importantly because it is the standard date formatting used in Norway. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Arsenikk (talk)  20:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)