Wikipedia:Peer review/Flytoget/archive1

Flytoget

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is close to FA standards, but I would like feedback. It passed the GA, but without much comments on the prose—I presume this may be where the most errors lay. Thanks, Arsenikk (talk)  14:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and enjoyable article. I have a few suggestions for improvement.


 * You are right in thinking that the article needs a copyedit. Nothing big leaps out as wrong, but I see many small things that need fixing. Examples are a missing conversion for 160 km/h in the "Construction" section; a missing hyphen in "14,580 metres (47,800 ft) ... railway tunnel" in the "Challenges" section; several words that are not quite right such as "trick" in "who found a trick to print two tickets" in the "Incidents" section; a link from "X2" to a disambiguation page, and typos such as "newly education train divers" in the "Operations" section. I see too many of these small errors to list them all here. My advice would be to find a good copyeditor to go over the article from top to bottom.


 * The lead could be improved by adding at least a mention of the material covered in each section of the article. The existing lead doesn't mention the "Incidents" section.


 * The lead should not cover material that is not mentioned in the main text. The existing lead tells us how many passengers used the service in 2007, that the service had a 34% market share of airport ground transport, and that the service is the only high-speed rail service in operation in Norway. These are interesting and important bits of information, but they need to be developed in the main text, probably in the "Operations" section.


 * Some of the citations such as #3 are missing their access date.


 * This is more difficult and probably not required for FA, but a route map might be helpful to readers unfamiliar with Oslo.


 * A lot of the source material is written in Norwegian rather than English. I don't see anything that is apt to be challenged, but if the source language becomes a verifiability issue, guidelines for what to do can be found at WP:NONENG.

If you have questions or comments, please post them here. I am putting a watch on this page. If you find my comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, perhaps one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)