Talk:Ålgård Line

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ålgård Line article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ålgård Line has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 4, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 26, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that when the Ålgård Line opened in 1924, it was the last state-owned railway in Norway to be built with narrow gauge?

Trains Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 15, 2013

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norway

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ålgård Line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: two disambiguations fixed.diff

Linkrot: no dead links found.

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose is "reasonably well written", I made a small number of copy-edits.diff Complies sufficiently with the MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Online sources check out, I assume good faith for print sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Thorough, whilst remaining focussed on the subject.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Correctly tagged and captioned.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I have no hesitation in passing this as a good article. Congratulations! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the articles. Your feedback is continuing to make me an ever better Wikipedian. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map?[edit]

Could you provide a map? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]