Jump to content

Talk:Kirkenes–Bjørnevatn Line/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

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]