Talk:Ekeberg Line/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this point. I took three days off wikipedia and it has taken some time to catch up to where I should have been at the end of November.

I've had a quick overview of the article: its going to get GA-status this time round, but I'd still going to do a full review. I've found a few minor points that I don't understand and/or inconsistencies. So at this stage I just going to concentrate on "problems". As I usually do, I'm leaving my comments on the WP:Lead until after I've reviewed the individual sections. Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Route -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC) - Possibly a minor point, but its not made clear why distances are referenced from Stortorvet. It does not seem to be on this line.

• Explained. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• History -

• This is not a mandatory requirement for obtaining GA status: its only a suggestion. It's taking me a lot of effort to read and review this section. It interesting, but I suspect many reader might give up at this point. I suggest that the readability might be improved by spilling this into (possibly) three subsections. KSS (written in full) might do as the first subsection title, and "Deregulation" as the title of the final subsection.

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC) - This section of text could do with some clarification: "Construction of the Simensbråten Line started in December 1928.[15] During construction, the Ekeberg Line past Jomfrubråten was moved. Instead of following Kongsveien, it was moved further up. The double-tracked Ekeberg Line was placed on the new line, while the Simensbråten Line would follow the old route along Kongsveien." I suggest, that as a start, it could read ..."Construction of the Simensbråten Line started in December 1928;[15] and this resulted in the Ekeberg Line past Jomfrubråten being moved.", but you don't have to take these words if you can acheive clarity another way. Also, I'm not sure what "Instead of following Kongsveien, it was moved further up" is trying to say. Is "up" a direction, such as north, "upward" such as raised to a higher elevation, or is Kongsvien a street/road and the line was moved to a different street/road?

• 'Up' is higher elevation, as the whole line is built climbing a hill. I've tried to rephrase, tell me if it isn't clear enough. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC) - In this paragraph "After the nationalization, the company started a renovation process of the infrastructure and rolling stock. Combined with a municipal policy of low fares, the company started going with a loss. Five new trams were delivered from 1948 to 1952, and built at the depot at Holtet, with used equipment from some of the older trams. An additional nine new trams were delivered between 1952 and 1955. Five additional trams were rebuilt from 1955 to 1960, by which time all the narrow trams had been rebuilt or retired.[22] The use of a unique voltage gave operational difficulties, as fuses could regularly blow at Oslo Hospital if errors where done while switching from the one current to the other. In addition, all the trams were custom-built with extra equipment with limited spare parts. All the trams delivered during the 1950s were built so they could later be converted to only use 600 volt power.[23] The depot was expanded in 1952.[24]", it would reads better in English if "supply" was used instead of "current" and "power".

• Most of the railway books I read are either in Norwegian or about North American [and thus unelectrified] lines, so sometimes the terminology isn't quite up to date. Guess I should buy some books on London Transport or something :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Or, you could could read an English book on the Norwegian railways. Its unreferenced but it has a bibliography (mostly in Norwegian); and nothing after the 1994 Winter Olympics. :) Pyrotec (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Having got this far, the sentence "The use of a unique voltage gave operational difficulties, as fuses could regularly blow at Oslo Hospital if errors where done while switching from the one current to the other." raises an (unasked) question that has not been addressed so far. The line was 1,200 volt so what happened at Oslo Hospital? Presumably the Gamleby Line was 600 volts, so did people change tram, or did the tram get switched to 600 volt running - hence blown fuses when something went wrong? 1200 volt running is not mentioned until paragraph 7.

• Mentioned this in the lead. Also explained how the current switching was done.

• Yes, indeed. However, the Lead is intended to be both an introduction and a summary; and there was no mention of dual voltage running. Pyrotec (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• By the above I meant I added some info on this in the lead. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Threat of closure and renewal -

• This sentence in the third paragraph has a typo ("1960" instead of "the" ?) or is missing some text: "The Ekeberg Line lost traffic because it did not operate to the city center, and 1960 decision in the city council was it impossible to lay new tracks to Stortorvet. Pyrotec (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Future -

• This looks OK.

• WP:Lead

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - I think "1,200 volt current" would read better as 1,200 volt supply.

• Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

....Stopping at this point. I'm putting the review On Hold and I may come back to the lead. Pyrotec (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've fixed up what you've mentioned so far. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

All should be fixed now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   An interesting article

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing another Norwegian transport-related GA. Pyrotec (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for another review. I'm about a quarter of the way through GAing all the Norwegian railway, tram and metro lines now, so there is lots to look forward too ;) Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)