Talk:Bergen Tramway/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

Overall this looks to be quite a reasonable article: well referenced and illustrated. However, I have a few comments which will follow in my more detailed review. As per my normal way of reviewing, I'm leaving discussion of the WP:Lead until the end of the article.

History -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC) - It would be nice to know where the horse tram went, but the citation (ref 1) does not appear to provide any further information.[reply]

I hate to say this, but there has never been a horsecar (aka horse tram) in Bergen. Both the reference and according to Nils Carl Aspenberg (1996): Fran Minde til Sandviken, p. 9 states "hesteomnibuss", which is not the same as "hestetrikk", but rather a coach (carriage). To answer Pyrotec's question, the coach had two lines from Torget, one via Nygårdsgaten to Nygård, and the other via Strandgaten to Tollbodalmenningen. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Arsenikk - I've been on a (NSB) buss in Bergen, admitedly a few years ago. Pyrotec (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph, it states: three lines went through the city centre (they are named). For those of us not all that familiar with the city (the map below is too small to read) it would be helpful to provide a bit more detail, such as an N-E route, SW-SE route (if applicable).
15 Pyrotec (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC) - In the third paragraph there is information, such as the "tram from Nygårdsbroen was merged with the tram to Sandviken", that can't be interpreted since Sandviken is not mentioned in the 2nd paragraph. I would go further and say that about half of the information in this paragraph can't be interpreted since it refers to places and/or branches that have not been introduced before. I suspect that a route diagram is needed.[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC) - Some clarification of the proposed but not built Fløibanen link is needed. Trams could not travel on the Fløibanen, so that implies either a new tram line or a new tram stop on an existing line.[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC) - The first paragraph has UEG as the major shareholder and in the fifth paragraph AEG is mentioned. Its not clear if UEG became AEG, UEG sold out to AEG, or AEG was an minor shareholder. In the same paragraph Håkon J. Wallem let Bergen take over - implying that he was a (the) major shareholder (having bought AEG's share). The uncertainty needs to be removed if the article is be a GA.[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC) - I Think this phrase "...the Bergen City Council pass a final determination of the city's tram network." is trying to say that Bergen City Council decided to close the city's tram network.[reply]

Fixed. Sorry for the Schwarzenegger language =). Eisfbnore (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lines -

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, this section would be enhanced by the addition of a route diagram.

- Line 1 -

In the History, the first two lines are described as "One line ran from Bradbenken to Sukkerhusbryggen over Torget, the second ran from Småstrandgaten to Nygårdsbroen"; whilst in this section, they are described as "Småstrandgaten and Nygårdsbroen" (same line but reverse order) and "Sukkerhusbryggen and Sandviken" (one common place, in reverse order; and two different places). Furthermore, in the History section it is stated that "In 1898, the tram from Nygårdsbroen was merged with the tram to Sandviken", but it this one the Sandviken line appears to have merged with the Sukkerhusbryggen line.
Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC) - Only the first sentence is referenced.[reply]

- Line 2 -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC) - Perhaps its a typo or an attempt to use English names, but in some sections "Småstrand gate" is used and in other places "Småstrandgaten" is used. I know that "-gaten" means street or road, but "gate" (in English) is no longer a street or road.[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC) - Only the first sentence is referenced.[reply]

- Line 3 -

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Downtown" appears to be North American English meaning centre or business area. Its not UK-English (I'm biased!!), if that's the intended use perhaps it could be stated directly.
Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC) - I assume that linje 5 & 11, in English, are Lines 5 & 11?[reply]

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lead -

This is intended to provide both an introduction to the article and a summary of the main points. The current lead is too short, it needs some more detail; and I would suggest could be doubled in length.

Pyrotec (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm put the review On hold. Pyrotec (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Some of the route descriptions cannot be interpreated due to inconsistent naming and lack of adequate route descriptions.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Generally, well-referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Generally, well-referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
The article contains some pertinant illustrations.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
The article provides details of a number of lines, with their terminii named; and some discussion of various mergers and closures. A map of the Bergan tramway system is provided, but this does not have adequate resolution for those not faimilar with the system to interpret the various expansions, mergers and closures. This needs to be adressed, or a route diagram provided.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

This article is very close to being a GA and has been considerably improved over the last month. With the addition of a route digram and/or adequate description of the routes and some atention to the WP:Lead it should make GA next time round. As this review has been On Hold since 4 September I'm now closing the nomination. It would be nice to see this article gain GA status, but a little more work is needed (but not a lot). I wish the article well. Pyrotec (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]