Talk:Gullfisk/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This looks like a GA. Just a few minor points, that need to be addressed first:

Background" - Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presummably the lighter weight from using aluminium bodies would allow faster acceleration (as well as or instead of less powerful motors)?

I would presume so, but the sources do not say this and I would also have thought that the acceleration of a tram would be limited to what is comfortable for standing passengers. It seems from what I have read about Norwegian rail transport history, that cost-reductions through less powerful motors is higher prioritized than increased performance. I fear that both my and your comments here are OR.

OK, we can't have OR.

Construction - Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a slight contradiction in first paragraph. The first sentence states: "They were numbered 158–163, although the numbers 158–159 and 161–162 had the same motors.", but the following sentence states: "B2 (158–159 with motors from Vickers) .... E3 (161–162 with motors from AEG)".

After reading three times, I understood your point. I think it makes sense without the second half of the first sentence, so I removed.

The second paragraph of Construction, is presummably (correctly) stating that the 20 Strømmens Værksted and the 20 license-built by Skabo Jernbanevognfabrikk had body, bogies and motors of the same type. However, it could also be read that there were of the same type as the six prototypes.

Fixed.

The second paragraph does not discuss the problems and the changes between the prototypes and the production vehicles; but it is covered in Specifications. I would suggest that the second paragraph be slightly expanded to summarise what immediate problems were found in the running of the prototypes and what immediate changes these "forced" on the procurement specifications of the production vehicles. The Specifications section appears to be looking at a wider time frame and it is not particularly clear what changes were made between the prototypes and the production vehicles and what changes were made reterospectively.

I have added a few sentences, basically stating that the motor experiments were a failure. As for your second comment, I am a bit uncertain what to do. Only the motors and brakes changed from the prototypes to the serial units, and the differences are clearly stated in the text. All changes to the specifications are indicated by a year or other approximation.

OK. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have fixed up and left one comment/question. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A well illustrated, well referenced article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

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:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status. PS. I must get round to learning Norsk, so that in future I can check your refs. Pyrotec (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'm doing my best so no-one will need to know Norwegian to learn "everything" about rail transport in Norway ;) Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]