Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Follo Line/1

Follo Line

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: No action. The article can be renominated at any time. Suggestions for improvements can be found below. Geometry guy 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The article Follo Line has been up for review twice, and both times it has been quick-failed under questionable circumstances. Both reviewers have chosen to quick fail the article because they believe the article cannot pass because the line has yet to be built. Previously, several unbuilt rail project have been passed through the GA process. I believe the problem lays in the reviews misunderstanding the scope of the GA criteria. They observe that future sports events or elections, and unreleased films and games cannot pass the GA criteria, and try to transfer this understanding to other areas. The reason the mentioned articles cannot pass, it that until they are held/released, they violate criterion 3a (all major areas): future sport events and elections will lack a coverage of the results, while game/film articles will lack a section on reception. This is not the case with railways: Even for old railways, a large section of the history is the political and planning process, which for the most part is now concluded for the Follo Line. The route has been finalized, and there are accurate estimates of the impact. Even the usage of the railway can be fairly accurately estimated. Megaprojects, such as this one costing over a billion euros, involve massive and accurate planning, with detailed reports based on complicated models that produce accurate results. While details may change, the article is stable, and little content will be added ten next ten years (probably less than an railway in operation). The article clearly meets criterion 3a, 5, WP:N and WP:V. Arsenikk (talk)  10:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the first review, it was clamed that the article did not pass criterion 5 (stability). The article has had very few edits, and nothing even remotely close to the level "significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". The reviewer claimed that he was entitled to fail an article on this criterion because of a short discussion on the GAN talk page in 2007, where it was agreed that a future Olympic game could not be passed.
 * In the second review, the article was quick-failed for violating WP:CRYSTAL. The reviewer has clearly misunderstood the polity, that is related to unverifiable claims about future events. However, it clearly states that article with reliable and verifiable sources make the article notable. The reviewer concludes with claiming that an article with mostly Norwegian sources cannot be verified—which is the direct opposite of what WP:V states.
 * I am the second reviewer and I failed the review as:
 * The line will apparently not start construction until 2013. Many things could change before then. Route, cost, the project may even be cancelled. In my opinion this fails WP:Crystal.
 * All but one sources (historical statistics, #1) are in Norwegian. Verifiability says, quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. This has not been done. The only English language references to the Follo Line that I can find are mirrors of Wikipedia apart from the one external link which appears to be a little out of date, suggesting that a route decision will be made in 2008, and that construction may start in 2013, subject to funding being available. That is some time ahead and there may well be political or economic reasons for changes or cancellation of the project.  Possibly English language sources in the specialist railway press could be found for such a major project. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Read again. It says to translate the material only "Where editors translate a direct quote". Punkmorten (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT suggests that the supporting statement needs to be quoted and translated. That is my rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With reference to the project proceeding doubt is cast here Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am very concerned, because Jezhotwells seems repeatedly to be making up policy as he goes to support his claims. To quote Verifiability: "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." The rest of the section is only about direct quotes, of which none are used in the article. All the original material available on the project is in Norwegian—if anything could be found in English I would of course include it. As for WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, it says absolutely nothing about language at all. To quote WP:CRYSTAL: "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." The article Follo Line is clearly within this scope, since a mutlitude of official reports and media attention have looked at the article. WP:CRYSTAL is constructed in such a way that even if the Follo Line were not to be built, which is possible, but highly unlikely, it would still remain notable enough for an article. The fact that the choice of use of tunnel boring machines or blasting is very trivial, and even when chosen would add a single sentence to the article. Arsenikk (talk)  19:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to say, I have no objections to this article being reviewed for GA status -- just that I won't be doing that -- or for any other article with the majority of sources in a language for which I cannot establish verifiability or reliability. Cheers. I am happy to reinstate Follo Line to the top of the list if the nominator so wishes, and will post my reasons on the GA2 page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments. Articles on future events and proposed projects frequently cause problems, and it is understandable that reviewers and nominators have difficulty navigating this territory. Let me make some general and specific comments.
 * It is perfectly possible to have GAs on future events and projects: they are not ruled out by the criteria, and there are/have been examples such as Cologne Mosque project, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) and Three Gorges Dam. The so-called "quick-fail" criterion "The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint" is largely a matter of pragmatism: it is difficult to review an article which is changing, and one which will change substantially in the near future will need to be reassessed; hence it is often a better use of resources to wait.
 * I'm glad to see reviewers wanting to check source material before passing an article. Foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable where English-language equivalents are unavailable or inferior quality; translations only need to be provided for direct quotations. The GA criteria have nothing to say on this. Where the sources are online, automatic translation tools such as translate.google.com often provide good enough text to verify the material. I do not recommend this for writing articles or for providing translations of quotations, but it may be good enough for verification by reviewers.
 * Concerning the present article, I would not have failed it without a review: this is not a rapidly unfolding event, nor does it have a definite endpoint; "wait until 2013 or beyond" is not an acceptable response to a good faith nomination of an article on a topic which is clearly notable. However, I wouldn't pass the article in its present state either. For one thing, secondary (third party) source material is very thin on the ground here, and underused. Much of the article is sourced to the Norwegian National Rail Administration, or the report it commissioned from Det Norske Veritas. This is primary source material, and cannot be interpreted by Wikipedia: we need secondary sources to do that for us. We can only report factual information, using qualification (attribution) where necessary to convert a prediction or projection into a prediction or projection by the source. Additionally, it can be helpful to back-up primary sources by secondary ones, even if the latter are not the pinnacle of WP:RS: additional sources demonstrate notability and acceptance of the primary source material. The article fails 2(a) and 2(b) here.
 * There is closely related to a second concern: Follo Line is not a railway line; such a line does not exist. Hence the article should not be written as an article on a railway line. It should be written as an article on a project and proposal to create a railway line. That the line will eventually exist should not be presented as a fait accompli (that would fail criterion 4). One cannot discuss the "route" of a line which does not exist. Instead discuss in broad terms the proposals which have been made and how the decision-making has evolved. The article fails 3(b) here in my view.
 * There are also probably 3(a) failings. Has there been opposition to the proposals? What about the relation to this year's elections? Maybe the article should even be renamed to something like Follo Line project to focus more attention on the political dimension.
 * There isn't a lot that GAR can do for a failed nomination in these circumstances. I hope the above provides a good substitute for the review the article didn't receive. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments Geometry guy. I could not find any online free translation tools that provided any meanigful translation of the sources, hence ny comments above. I have pointed out that the article can be re-nominated. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)