Talk:Flytoget/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually inaccurate and verifiable - it states that the Norwegian-language term for "airport express train" is "Flytoget" whereas it is not: the correct Norwegian-language term for that is "lufthavn ekspresstog". Flytoget is a commercial brand that means "flue trains" (as in "chimney trains").
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The problems during construction are well covered, but I would like to see some more about issues during years of operation, otherwise it may look like a bit of a whitewash. Preferably this should go in a separate section, titled "Incidents", or something similar. A quick search on VG-nett revealed that there is plenty to take from: there seems to have been at least five deadly accidents: [1], [2], [3], [4], in one case the company was even fined for not informing drivers properly about a reduced speed area [5]. There have been plenty of delays, cancellations and minor accidents: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], rampant pickpockets: [13], [14], technical problems: [15], sabotage: [16], [17] and embezzlement: [18]. On the other hand it drew some positive attention when Al Gore decided to take Flytoget when receiving his Nobel Prize (though his luggage was sent by Mercedes...): [19]. I'm not saying all of this should be included, but some of it should, to provide balance.  Done
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    See above.  Done
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Once this issue has been resovled the article should be ready to pass. Good luck! I am now passing the article, good job! Lampman Talk to me! 13:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article; it is much appreciated, especially since you seem to have caught me overlooking the obvious. I have expanded the article with an incident section and some other small stuff, I hope it is to your liking—if not just call out and I shall look to it. As for all these death accidents, they are according to the Railway Inspectorate all suicides, though the press coverage is not particularly good at stating them as such. I have left out all individual coverages of those, and after skimming through all the annual reports from the inspectorate I cannot establish any other lethal incidents than the one in 1999. I have mentioned some, but not all derailings—they are a frequent enough affair that not all need be mentioned. Again, thanks for helping improving the article. Arsenikk (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the deaths are obviously all suicides - with the one exception - but the newspapers can't report them as such until after the investigations, and by then they've lost interest. Nasty business, as you're not only gonna kill yourself, but mess up the driver for life. Anyway, the improvements were more than I could hope for. The article looks great now, and I'm happy to promote it to GA, good job! Lampman Talk to me! 00:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]