Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flytoget/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:36, 23 September 2008 [1].

Flytoget

[edit]
Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all the FA criteria. The article is currently a Good Article, and has past through a peer review, and had a thorough copyedit since then, and I believe the article now stands to represent the finest quality of Wikipedia. Arsenikk (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look through the article, it looks ok, though not quite FA yet. These are some of the problems standing in the way, though if these are corrected it could be fine:
  • "Flytoget AS is a high-speed airport rail link connecting Oslo Airport, Gardermoen to Oslo, Norway, in nineteen minutes." — this is too fragmented. It should be reworded to "Flytoget AS is a norwegian high-speed airport rail link connecting Oslo Airport to Oslo in nineteen minutes." This is much easier to read.
  • "The sixteen BM71 trains run on the Gardermobanen high-speed railway line, normally every ten minutes, with half the services continuing westwards to Asker." — I think would be better worded "Flytoget runs sixteen BM71 trains on the Gardermobanen high-speed railway line, normally once every ten minutes, with half the services continuing to Asker."
  • "Several lethal accidents have been induced by Flytoget, but only one due to an accident." this isn't very well written, it would be better worded "Several fatal accidents have been caused by Flytoget trains". I'm not sure what "but only one due to an accident" is supposed to mean.
Bear in mind I've only had a quick flick through the article, and probably haven't spoted everything, but these things need to be fixed--Serviam (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback; the improvements have now been incorporated into the text. Arsenikk (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. Sentence structure and boundaries need a lot of work. There's a tendency to stuff lots of info into each sentence, which is producing a bumpy, chunky, difficult read. Please find a collaborator to help, and ping me when the whole text is ready. I'd withdraw, actually, and work on it properly—then resubmit.

  • "Branded" is not the right word. Just "(in English, the ...)".
  • Sounds as though it was built in 19 minutes. You could slip "19-minute run/link" into the subsequent sentence instead. The opening sentence is quite chunky already.
  • What does "normally" mean here? Unless there's a train crash? Or during days and evenings (but not during the dead of night)?
  • "These" means the half that go full way, or all trains?
  • Last sentence in para 1 gives the travel time anyway, so why twice? Comma needed, and keep the items in both clauses (either side of "and") in the same order. Asker is what? An outlying suburb? Tony (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Please note non-English language sources in the footnotes. It appears that most of the sources are in Norwegian (which isn't in itself a problem, but it's nice to tell the folks that click on links that they aren't in English)
Honestly, I coudln't check the sources because they are mostly in Norwegian, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources, I can spot several that are missing publishers, and several that could be questioned (not necessarily in terms of reliability, but just starting with, what is this?) Unless someone else gets to it, I can do it myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. In all instances where the publisher is the same as the author, publisher is not included—this includes several online newspaper articles [from reliable newspapers] that have failed to publish the name of the author. In the GA process, User:Lampman (a Norwegian speaker) verified all the references; I believe the references are unchanged since that review. All Norwegian-language references are marked as such in the reference list. I have used English sources all places that they could found (which unfortunately excludes much of the detailed reports). Arsenikk (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article could do with a good copyedit to get rid of the odd constructions such as "the tunnel Romeriksporten" (it should be "the Romeriksporten tunnel"). In particular I found it a bit hard to read because I was expecting the definite article "the" to appear before the railway line names (e.g. "the Gardemobanen"). I suspect that Norwegian does not use the definite article here but English should as these names are equivalent of "the Gardemoen line". Other points

  • Is the article about the rail service or the company that runs it (or even about the line it runs on)? The article name is "Flytoget" but the lead starts "Flytoget AS is ..." and there is a financial listbox on the right hand side. My suggestion would be to make the crux of the article about the rail service (with the top most image being a train) and refer to the operating company in a separate section.
  • A map showing Oslo, the airport and the relevant new and old railway lines would be very useful for those of us who are Norway-geography challenged.
  • As the service is supposed to be high-speed I think a mention of the max train speed should be in the lead.

Boissière (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have stuttered through the problem of Norwegian railway line names through my two years on Wikipedia, due to some prior unwritten "naming convention" to use the Norwegian names. To explain the problem: the en-ending of Gardermobanen is the definitive article, so it will either "hurt" those that speak Norwegian, or those that do not. I agree that we consequently should rename all Norwegian railway lines from Foobanen to [the] Foo Line. Concerning the breadth of the article, which I previously have given some though, it covers both the service and the company, since they are in a 1:1 relation to eachother. If two separate articles were to be made, they would repeat each other a lot. The physical railway line itself is covered in the article Gardermobanen. Arsenikk (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I can see your dilemma. I hadn't appreciated that the -en was the definite article and I suspect that this would also be lost on most English-speaking readers so it is fairly unlikely that they would be "hurt" as you put it. On the other hand I would be personally be against renaming the articles the "Foo line" as you propose as this isn't really their name. If I suggested that in the prose you referred to "the Gardemoban" (i.e. without the -en), would that work at all?
As for your other point, I wasn't really suggesting that you have two articles (i.e one on the service and one on the company) but that this article concentrated on the service (which is probably of more general interest) and had a section that covered the company. Boissière (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Flytoget/archive1&oldid=1146636748"