Talk:Kristiania Sporveisselskab/GA1

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

Starting GAR. Pyrotec (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

On Hold
1. This article is not particularly easy to read and the grammar needs cleaning up (I'm willing to help in this matter).

2. What this article needs, at present, are route diagrams to clarify where the three competitors are running services.

3. More images would help enhance the article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I will look into the matters, but it may take a few days to locate images and create a route diagram. Arsenikk (talk)  11:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggested one, or more route diagram(s) as a means of enhancing the article, however a "map" would serve the same purpose and might be easier to produce if there is uncertainty over the stops on the route. Some articles on railways, e.g. Ffestiniog Railway, Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway and Talyllyn Railway, in the UK, but there are others, use stylised "maps", so another possibility is to take a stylised immage of Oslo, such as this one - [[Image:Tettstedet Oslo 2005.png|thumb|right]] and sketch the lines on it. Pyrotec (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have tried to find a map, but failed, in part because the copyright of any contemporary map has not yet expired. I have no software to create map images, so I have instead opted for a somewhat simplified schematic diagram, based on the BS system. Hope this settles the matter—if not I can enquirer further. Sorry for this taking so long. Arsenikk (talk)  12:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It is an improvement, but I am still having difficulty identifying all the lines. In respect of the History section, the schematic does not show:
 * the Stortorvet to Homansbyen line,
 * the short-lived direct Homanbyen to the station line,
 * what later became the Homansbyen to Oslo line.


 * The grammar needs improving and I am working on it at the moment; and there is not much in the way of references - is Aspenberg the only one available? Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

GAR
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: