Talk:Berg metro station/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Avoid linking decades and centuries.
First you say "the beginning of the twentieth century" and then "a decade later". Could you be more specific? In particular, I would say the beginning of the century is the first quarter, although other might disagree.
I say this to the Americans, so I better tell you this too: remember to add the country (not necessarily linked).
This article contains the "full history" of the line, while the Østhorn article contains only the history of the station itself. Why the difference?
The section "accidents" needs a clean-up. There are a few incomplete sentences and other oddities, such as "was killed between by a train whoseIn 2002, ..."
There has been some debate over what a bydel is in English, but it isn't "municipality", which is the translation for kommune. I've stuck in borough, although some say that is wrong too.
Don't put periods (full stop) at the end of captions unless they are full sentences.
Maps are not appropriate external links. Instead, users can use their favorite map program through clicking on the coordinates.

To sum up: copyedit the section on accidents and answer about why there is so much history here and not on Østhorn, thanks. Placing on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to do the review. For some weeks ago, I got really inspired by the FT Brill Tramway, and saw that it contained many stations with duplicated info from the main article (e.g. Westcott railway station), and made a sort of an utopian dream of making Sognsvann Line a FT ;) But it didn't work out that well here, so I simply deleted text unrelated to Berg station. I also merged the section Accidents into the History section, hope that's better. --Eisfbnore (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the general history is fine, and it ends of being an editorial choice. You could have removed less and it still would have been okay, but this is fine too. Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]