Talk:Kristiania Sporveisselskab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Kristiania Sporveisselskab was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 16, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Did You Know
WikiProject Trains / Streetcars (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
P train.svg
Trains Portal
DYK September 26, 2008
Sinnbild Straßenbahn.svg Trams Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Norway (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kristiania Sporveisselskab/GA1. 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[edit]

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 -
Tettstedet Oslo 2005.png
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[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This article was probably submitted before it was ready for GAR - significant progress has been made, but more is needed.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Improvements are needed to both the grammar and the clarity. The addition of route schematics has helped clarify the grammar, but not all the routes mentioned in the text appear within the route diagram.
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    This article is mostly based on a single source: a Norsk book - is this the only source available?
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Not known
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    The "end of the company" is not covered other than in the WP:Lead
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article can be resubmitted at a latter date; not much progress has been made recently, and it is not clear that a further extension of the "On hold" is justified.