Talk:Lillesand–Flaksvand Line/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments: I am concerned about the reliability of the sources. Besides Aspenberg , the rest of the sources comes from one website (which by the way, has a hidden trojan virus!). I am unable to ascertain if this site is reliable. Can you please provide me with more information on the site (as it is in Norwegian), and how it would comply with WP:RS? Thanks.

Thanks for the review. I was almost expecting this concern, and normally I would not regard this sort of site reliable. However, there are several indications that it is reliable. I would not consider this "high quality" enough for featured status, but it should be sufficient for GA:

The material is sourced, albeit not inline. The sources page indicates those newpaper articles and other literature that were used in compiling the information
The page is made by a headmaster; in addition to presenting factual information about the line, it contains a series of assignments for pupils. Given the scope of the site, it is probable that he has studied history at college/university level (although I cannot verify this).
As this is within the scope of local history, my impression is that the academic quality of this information is the same level as other local history research/writing.
The information provided is related solely to presenting uncontroversial historical facts, not producing research of any kind. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments: Thank you for your explanation. I have checked with WP:RS and found that there are exceptions which can be accepted, and I believe this one of them. As such, I am confident that this article meets all the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to list it as one. -- S Masters (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]