Talk:Oslo Commuter Rail/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SpinningSpark 19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to be tied up tomorrow, so full review will probably be on Saturday. One immediate comment is that the line map is unreadably small. To be useful it needs to be much larger. Could this be left-aligned below the lede? Or possibly centered between the TOC and the infobox? SpinningSpark 19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made it 400px, which is about what I of accessibility reasons would allow a page on Wikipedia to load. I admit that it looks unreadable at that size, and I would guess it isn't really readable at less than, say 600 to 800 px. With it at this size, it gives an "impression" of the route (although it isn't geographically accurate), but a readable size image is just going to be too large, in my opinion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look at a few other articles, all with the same problem, and no one seems to have a good solution to this. SpinningSpark 10:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Lede

:*taken into use sounds odd. "Taken into service" or "brought into use" are more conventional phrases. :*Norwegian State Railways (NBS). Is the acronym right?, NSB is used elsewhere in the article.

• Network

:*The shear number of references after the second sentence are quite intrusive. Some of these could be combined inot one citation; <ref>Bjerke (1994): 33, 37, 51....</ref> :*all lines either terminate or run through the station. to be grammatically correct "all lines either terminate at, or run through the station."

• The line is the only to enter Oppland, "The line is the only one to enter Oppland"
• from Oslo&nsbp;S. typo

• Service

:*after negotiations for NSB's lines. Can't really understand what that means. Presumably the state run lines are paying NSB for the use of their rails, and the cost has to be negotiatied. True this will add to the deficit but it is just another operating cost. There must be a more straightforward way of saying this.

• • What I meant is that NSB and the state negotiate the service level and the price the state will pay. I just removed the term negotiated, since it was just confusing and didn't really help much. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:*Can you wikilink headway, not all readers will know this term

• Rolling stock

• If LT and ST are meant to be long ton and short ton can they be wikilinked please on first occurence.

• The template {{convert}} appears to have the facility to link the units (I have not tried it) but if not, please consider manually doing the first conversion so they can be linked. SpinningSpark 13:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:*fifteen 69A in 1970 this is plural so should be 69As :*and again, 69Bs, 69Cs and 69Ds. :*seating for 310 passenger and one toilet, passengers, plural. :*and are unlike the predecessors equipped with electronic public information system. This is a bit clumsy, suggest "and unlike their predecessors are equipped with an electronic public information system." :*Class 65s units. If 65s indicates plural rather than part of the class name it is out of place as "units" is already plural. :*Does "copies" have some special meaning? Why "Class 65A was built in 14 copies" and not "14 units of Class 65A were built"

• Images - all ok

• I still some of the article to review, but am posting what I have so far. One general point, I found the dual use of Line to mean both a route and a physical length of track to be confusing at first. I am guessing that this terminology is going to be unavoidable. SpinningSpark 23:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• History

:*taken into use, multiple places "put into service". :*These proved to not be, "these proved not to be" :*Class 65 the first that were optimized, "Class 65 were the first that were optimized" :*The Østfold Line was also next line to be electrified, "The Østfold Line was also the next line to be electrified" :*replace a third of the needed number of units. Does this mean that the number of trains required is one third what it was previously, or does it mean the number trains can be reduced by one third. I am not clear on which is meant. Probable meaning (and suggestion) "dispense with one third of the previous number of units."

• Future

:*is planned built nearly..., "is planned to be built nearly..."

• is presumed to be the Follo Line. Why "presumed", is that not what the source says. In other words, who is doing the presuming, the source, or Wikipedia?
  • The source is presuming, as such. However, it is more that one cannot predict the future 100% than anything else, but it is highly likely.

• Fair enough, but it is a bad choice of word, it sounds like Wikipedia is doing the presuming. "Planned", "scheduled" or "predicted", whichever is the more appropriate, would be better. The alternative is to specifically name the source "it is presumed by X that..." but that would not be my first choice as it gives the impression we don't quite fully believe X. SpinningSpark 13:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• scheduled for completion in 2018. I don't see this date in the cited source (Norwegian). I will of course accept in good faith that it is there if you tell me it is.
  • I must admit I was just copy and pasting sources from the Follo Line article, and it seems that the date is not included. I've added another reference to make it clearer. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Still not seeing 2018. I've got from the new source Sannsynlig byggestart for the nye Follobanen it i 2013. Admittedly, I 'm going on a mangled machine translation which only half makes sense. SpinningSpark 12:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• References

• References 27, 28, 29, 38, 39, 40, 72, 75, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83 are currently deadlinks (although WebCite is indicating that they may be restored.) The originals, where linked, are still there however.
  • According to WebCite: "Any snapshots taken between April 23rd, 2010 and May 10th, 2010 are currently unavailable. They will be made available again shortly." So that is a temporary problem. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• This is a little worrying. I suggest you keep local copies of those pages so that you are able to archive them by other means if Webcite screws up. SpinningSpark 13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

*Format of ref 28 is publisher, title instead of title, publisher. Also refs 78, 79, 82. You seem to be taking the organisation name as the author, but this has not been done consistently - in other refs the organisation name is put in the publisher's position.

• • Sorry. Again, copy and paste "problems". Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:*The Bjerke reference has multiple editors according to Google books. They should either be credited, or the et al. formulation used. If Bjerke is the editor and the others article contributers, it is acceptable to just credit Bjerke if (ed.) is placed after his name.

• • In the book layout, it is pretty clear that Bjerke is the main author. The book consists nearly entirely of tables and notes to these, so they would all be authors. I've updated the bibliography info. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• SpinningSpark 17:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article and give so much constructive feedback. Unless noted, I have amended the article per your comments. Sorry for the slightly late response. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Too late to check this thoroughly tonight, but its looking like a pass. SpinningSpark 22:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Before passing, I would like to see linking to LT and ST, the "presumed" issue dealt with and the 2018 date clarified. SpinningSpark 13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the LT/ST thing and added a new source (I somehow managed paste the wrong link, even sending it through WebCite). Again, sorry for taking so long time to respond, but with exams I have other things at the top of my mind right now. Hope it is all correct now. Thanks again for the review. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)