Jump to content

Talk:Kirkenes–Bjørnevatn Line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKirkenes–Bjørnevatn 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
DateProcessResult
March 23, 2012Good article nomineeListed


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kirkenes–Bjørnevatn Line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 18:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History
  • "Iron ore was discovered at Bjørnevatn in 1866. " Citation needed.
  • Bottom of 2nd paragraph, close the gap with the ref.
  • Citations needed for "Mining started on 7 July 1910, with the first ore train being run on 13 July" and "in 1911, the system exported 330,000 tonnes of ore. " I appreciate you've added sources at the bottom of every paragraph but I like to see figures referenced with citations right next to them.
    • I've scanned through the guidelines on referencing, and I cannot find any hold your request to add superfluous citations just because there are figures there. The only place where additional cites are needed is for direct quotes and possibly for BLP issues.
Maybe there isn't, but if readers are reading your articles they may wish to verify some of the figures stated and convince themselves its accurate. That's the point, I thought.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Electrification
Occupation and reconstruction

The two bottom paragraphs could use some citations next to some of the figures stated, especially "In 1980, the mine's production peaked with an export of 2.4 million tonnes and 1,000 employees. ."

Thank you for the review. Arsenikk (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1980, the mine's production peaked with an export of 2.4 million tonnes and 1,000 employees." I believe it is still quite a strong statement and needs a citation. Some of the statements like "In addition, new hooper cars were built by Skabo" on the other hand have references and needn't.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added additional refs as you've asked for. I still do not agree with the rationale, but if it makes you happy (you are after all an editor I respect). Arsenikk (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the others I didn't mind so much but I think the one above its good to know where you got the evidence from that its peak was then..

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Good job, meets requirements I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Kirkenes–Bjørnevatn Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kirkenes–Bjørnevatn Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]