Talk:Bjorøy Tunnel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 10:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing...

• The first "tunnel" underneath "Specifications" should be capitalised.

• Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Parts of "Planning" is unreferenced.

• What parts. Pyrotec (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire article is referenced. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• First sentence of second "Planning" paragraph unreferenced.

• What parts. Pyrotec (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The second half of the seventh paragraph under planning is virtually unreferenced.
• Any portals or images for the article?

• I have, despite a fair amount of looking, not been able to find any free images of the tunnel. I'll add Portal:Roads. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The infobox should include the final overall cost of the tunnel in NOK, and if it is possible to determine, the amount in US dollars at the time of completion.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no such parameter for the infobox. I will, however, add the price to the lead. As for conversion, there is no good way to do this. The NOK to US$ fluctuates greatly (it has been between 5 and 10 krone to the dollar since the opening of the tunnel, mostly due to the fluctuation in the dollar value), so there is no real way to create an encyclopedic value for this, it would just end up being WP:OR. Also, large parts of the readership of WP are not American, and so at least pounds and euros should be included to not create systemic bias. In addition, this cannot be said to be a good article criteria. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Photos of the tunnel entrances or inside the tunnel will be essential to reaching GA status, in my opinion, but I am new to GA reviewing. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Photos are only required if actually available on Commons; the criteria say "Illustrated, if possible, by photos". As discussed on the talk page of GAN a long time ago, and as seen in many previous reviews, if there are no free, relevant images on the Commons, none need to be added to reach GA. And yes, I have checked a number of sources to see if it there is anything free available, and there isn't. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the article coordinates, and then at coordinates for islands mentioned in the article on Google Maps, the given coordinates do not seem to be correct. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Squirrel Hill Tunnel article has coordinates for each end.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The coordinates are dead on. If you look at it in Google Maps, you see that the coordinates (the green arrow) is right on the dotted line of the tunnel. I don't see how creating two coordinates will solve anything, as for instance Google Maps and many other applications grab the title coordinate for their linking of article. Also, a central coordinate shows where the tunnel actually crosses the fjord, rather than being two points far on the land. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The distance between the tunnel and Bergen should be mentioned, too. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Half the tunnel is in Bergen. Do you mean downtown Bergen? If so, why is that really relevant? Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pyrotec

I added this review page to my watchlist and I added a few short comments above because I was concerned about the "progress" of this WP:GAN review (and others) and because I had expressed my concerns twice on the reviewer's talkpage (see User talk:Sp33dyphil#Bjorøy Tunnel) and had seen no visible response. My main concerns are the communications (more precisely, the lack of) between the reviewer and the nominator of this article; other reviews completed and/or in progress by the reviewer; and I suspect, based on the various review pages and talkpages, little understanding of the GAN review process by the reviewer although two reviews have been completed by Sp33dyphil and another review beside this one is in progress).

It is not clear to me why the reviewer choose to carry out this review, it could be for one of a number of reasons: Good Intentions, gaining points for WikiCup, or "Score settling", and I have still not worked out what the motivation was. Due to, at that time, unresolved "problems" between this pair of editors over the Airbus A300 nonimation (see Talk:Airbus A330/GA1, Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Not responding, User talk:JMilburn#Airbus A330 and the Airbus A330 review corrective actions discussions spilling over onto other talkpages) I considered that it was unwise for the reviewer to chosen to review a GAN nomination from the reviewer of his latest nomination (at that time On Hold); and I said so at User talk:Sp33dyphil#Bjorøy Tunnel.

I'd like to clarify that, even though I'm participating in the WikiCup, my intentions were not to gain points when I created this review page. The reason is because user Arsenikk has nominated a few articles relating to infrastructure and, since a few was yet to be reviewed, I decided to pick this article and review it. Sorry for my inexperience regarding the peer review process, but I thought I could request opinions from someone else in case I've ran out of ideas on how to improve Bjorøy Tunnel. Also, I have the utmost respect for user Arsenikk, who is an administrator and a long-time Wikipedian. I lost my patience regarding the article Airbus A330 because, I thought, my requests to Arsenikk were fallen on deaf ears. Since he/she has responded, I have absolutely no feelings against him/her. Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 06:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying some of my comments above. Arsenikk is a he; he had replied on Talk:Airbus A330/GA1 some 12 hours before you raised questions at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Not responding and User talk:JMilburn#Airbus A330. Talk:Airbus A330/GA1 is the page where the review process takes place. I think you mean GAN review process (WP:GAN), Peer Review (WP:PR) is an entirely different process. You can ask for opinions, 2nd review, there is nothing wrong with that; you have done so and my comments appear below. However, the primary aim of the GAN review is to determine whether the article is compliant. If it is award GA-status and state why; if not either fail it and state why, or state what is needed to bring it up to GA-status and if you decide that that can be done in a resonable time place the article "on Hold" and then reassess. Improving the article can form part of the GA assessment, but it should be made clear that certain requirements are necessary for the article to pass (i.e. comply with WP:WIAGA) and others are "recommendations for improvement" but are not mandatory. Also, please note: You are lead reviewer so you are free to ignore any comments made by other reviewers if you choose to do so. Your's is also the final decision, so it is your decision whether the article gains GA-status, or not; and that requires a statement of whether or not the article is compliant with the requirments (i.e. with WP:WIAGA). Pyrotec (talk) Pyrotec (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review contains a number of mandatory requirements imposed by the reviewer: i.e. changes to grammar and referencing. It is similar, in this respect to Talk:Justin Boren/GA1 and Talk:Sergei Shirokov/GA1. The first review was completed and the article passed, but there is no evidence that the article was reviewed against the requirments of WP:WIAGA, for example by using {{GAList2}} as recommended in WP:GAN - How to review an article. The second review is just hanging there; and this review is at "Second opinion".

I have not reviewed Bjorøy Tunnel in depth, but I am happy to do so, if it helps. The requirements for GA are given in WP:WIAGA. There are specific requirements for referencing, they are stated in WP:WIAGA, in requirements 2 (a) and (b) and there is no requirement that every comment be referenced (see also Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Good articles and inline citations).

Further comments

• I am in favour of adding the total costs in NOK to the infobox as suggested above (and by all means express the total costs in NOK index linked to current values (2010 or 2011 values) provided that such a calculation is WP:Verifiable) - this is often done with UK articles as there are Government published indicies which allow this to be done without risking claims of WP:OR. I don't know whether these indices exist for the NOK. However, Norway is a sovereign state, so I see no reason for the costs to be expressed in US Dollar (Islandic Konar, UK Pounds, Euros, Japanese Yen, or any other foreign current). The only justification would be contracts linked to the price of Oil, which is usually sold priced in US Dollars.
• Images are not mandatory, they are "desirable" - see WP:WIAGA clause 6 (a) and (b). The problem is that this is a tunnel, so "interior views" are only likely to be available (if at all) from the owner and/or the builder; and if they have not released any copy-free images, then realistically its a non-starter. It might be possible for someone to photograph the two portals from the land, but again sometimes this is not possible to do so safely and legally. For example, anyone attempting to photograph the inside of an underwater tunnel in the UK (even a railway station) might well be treated by the Police as a potential terroist and could be arrested (it happens). However, for those readers not familiar with this part of Norway, it would be helpful to have a "map" showing connecting the relationshipe of Bjorøy in Fjell to the mainland at Hilleren in Bergen, Norway and the Vatlestraumen. I tried to find an example and only came up with these:

Perhaps a "line" could be added to the "Bergen: Tettsteder (SSB)", or a similar map, to indicate the route of the tunnel?

... to be continued, latter. Pyrotec (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to extract a map from OpenStreetMap and create something in .svg, which would make it easier to work with. Perhaps I have time tomorrow; if not I'll be out diving all weekend, so it may next week before I can get this done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but I've now added a map of the area, showing the island and how it connects to the mainland and surrounding area, including all the way to the city center. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the map. There are now several problems that have been introduced. I've opened the map at full resolution and I've found Bergan (by name) and several roads (such as E39, 540, 582, FV197, FV207, etc). I can't find Bjorøy, but I have found Bjorøyna with a road FV207 which crosses water (with a pair of hashed lines) to join up with the FV197; and I've found Tyssøy south of Bjorøyna linked by the FV207 which crosses water (with a solid pair of lines). A road drawn as a pair of hashed lines can mean several things, for instance in the UK: an unmetelled road, a road not yet built, an underground/underwater section, etc, so this aught to be defined; and there are other roads on this map that have a pair of hashed lines, plus several sea routes that are (obviously) either shipping or ferry routes. I don't yet regard the map and the article has "telling" the same story. Presummably, the Hordaland County Road 207 is the FV207 (its not stated anywhere); the article also states that: "...long subsea road tunnel connecting Bjorøy in Fjell to the mainland at Hilleren in Bergen..." and I can't find Hilleren on the map. I think the map aught to indicate both ends of the tunnel; and it might be usefull to have a key explaining some of the details. Pyrotec (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I'm ready to pass this. Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 00:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says a second opinion is requested; what is the second opinion needed on specifically? I can provide it if needed, or if Pyrotec already did so above then this can be passed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know what other aspects to be improve on. Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 06:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat my comments of 3 March 20011:

Thanks for the map. There are now several problems that have been introduced. I've opened the map at full resolution and I've found Bergan (by name) and several roads (such as E39, 540, 582, FV197, FV207, etc). I can't find Bjorøy, but I have found Bjorøyna with a road FV207 which crosses water (with a pair of hashed lines) to join up with the FV197; and I've found Tyssøy south of Bjorøyna linked by the FV207 which crosses water (with a solid pair of lines). A road drawn as a pair of hashed lines can mean several things, for instance in the UK: an unmetelled road, a road not yet built, an underground/underwater section, etc, so this aught to be defined; and there are other roads on this map that have a pair of hashed lines, plus several sea routes that are (obviously) either shipping or ferry routes. I don't yet regard the map and the article has "telling" the same story. Presummably, the Hordaland County Road 207 is the FV207 (its not stated anywhere in the article); the article also states that: "...long subsea road tunnel connecting Bjorøy in Fjell to the mainland at Hilleren in Bergen..." and I can't find Hilleren on the map. I think the map aught to indicate both ends of the tunnel; and it might be usefull to have a key explaining some of the details given on the map. Pyrotec (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Pyrotec (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summarising outstanding problems

The text within article appears to by verifiable using the citations provided and the tunnel can be found on various maps using the tunnel coordinates; but the text and the diagram are inconsistent. Each inconsistency is individually minor, but collectively they raise questions of verifiablity.

Specifically:

• Minor conflict between place names, i.e. Bjorøy and Bjorøyna, Tyssøy and Tyssøya; and road names, i.e. Hordaland County Road 207 and FV207.
  • For your information, FV = fylkesvei = county road. I agree this is not a good solution for the map. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The location of the tunnel: "... connecting Bjorøy in Fjell to the mainland at Hilleren in Bergen", the tunnel is not specifically marked on the map, but it may well join the existing road network at the FV196.
• The extent of Bergan. The map shows Bergan as being around Berganhus and Møhlenpris (possibly out to Sandviken and nearby areas).
  • Bergen is a municipality, and stretches beyond the location of where the name is placed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hilleren is not marked, but if Hilleren is near the FV207/FV196 (my quess) then mainland Bergen must extend down towards (perhaps) Fyllingsdalen and Loddefjord - but that is not clear from this map.
  • Everything to the right of the purple line is in Bergen. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The text gives three possible routes to Bjorøy: "The committee concluded with that there were three alternatives to build a fixed link to Bjorøy: a bridge from the island over Søre Steinsundet via Vestre Steinsundholmen, Kjerringholmen and Kaggen to Søre Snekkevik på Litlesotra; a tunnel under Vatlestraumen to Håkonshella; or a bridge over Vatlestraumen to Håkonshella or Kongshaug.[6]" unfortunately, none of these names and possible routes appear on the map, appart from the FV207.
• The text also states: "The grants were only given for the tunnel to Bjorøy, and not for the necessary roads which would connect Tyssøy to Bjorøy. This caused local controversy, as some people on Bjorøy disagreed that the tolls on the Bjorøy Tunnel should pay for the Tyssøy Bridge". I think I have found the bridge to Bjorøya, but it aught to be indicated on the map that it is a bridge and not, for instance, a causeway.

Pyrotec (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A general comment (I agree with everything Pyrotec has said): The map is the way it is because it is taken straight from OpenStreetMap. Any modification of this map involves quite a bit of work, as it will have to be manually edited in Inkscape. The amount of work to create a map which uses any different symbols (any modification beyond changing/moving around names or cropping) may very well take an hour of work. Right now the database is closed for downloading an .svg of the selected area of the map, but I can play around a bit and see. This will result in a zoomed in map which will only show Bjorøy and the immediate surrounding land. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to impose constraints on how the "minor problems" are addressed, for instance given a choice between several hours of .svg editing or just adding a Key in plain text to the map to state (for example) FV207 = fylkesvei = county roadwork 207, I would regard the latter as an acceptable solution. Similarly, indicating that a road drawn with dashed lines represents a tunnel (if true) and a road drawn with solid line is a road on land and/or a bridge (if appropriate); and that "Everything to the right of the purple line is in Bergen", could be acceptable. See "Domestic scheduled services from Fornebu in 1998" (taken from another of your GA's, I think): This approach may not address everything that I said, but it could reduce the amount of .svg editing. Pyrotec (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a map that I'm happy with, and it took perhaps half an hour, so it wasn't too bad. It's zoomed in and should be self-explanatory without a legend, and should contain all the places mentioned in the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'a OK by me. As Sp33dyphil has indicated above that the article is GA compliant. I'll close this review. Congratulations on the GA. Pyrotec (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]