# Talk:Hardanger Line

...this book might be of interest. I have only glanced at it, don't remember exactly what it was about. Geschichte (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You sure? The book was published some 17 years before the line opened, although only a year before the construction started. I'll be within a block away from the UiB HF library tomorrow, so I can take a look, but it wasn't an intuitive choice. Arsenikk (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not sure. It has something to do with rail expansion in Western Norway, is all I remember. Geschichte (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I found the book today, and it talked about all sorts of plans, mainly branches from the Bergen Line to Leikanger and Odda.  Through history, there must have been proposals to build to every unpopulated peninsula in the country. I didn't find any mention of the Hardanger Line, but the library had an old consultant report about the line. Although it contained some interesting facts and numbers, it was methodologically not particularly sound. As usual, the railway investments were only considered in lieu of the profitability (bedriftøkonmisk lønnsomhet), while roads were based on economical criteria (samfunnsøkonmisk lønnsomhet). Of course, roads provide no revenue, so with this methodological error, it is no wonder that no railway have been built the last 50 years. Arsenikk (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hardanger Line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Article is well written and complies to WP:MOS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
All references are in order.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Article is broad in its coverage and remains focused.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Article complies to WP:NPOV.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Article is stable.
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): 
All images comply to fair use requirements and are properly captioned.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Comments:
There were some minor issues, which I have fixed. I am satisfied that the article complies with all the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to pass it. -- S Masters (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and effort to review the article. Arsenikk (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)