Talk:Follo Line

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Follo Line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am planning to review this article SriMesh | talk 22:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• The new line is predicted to increase rush hour rail ridership wiht 63%, the word wiht ? The sentence would read ok without the word wiht in it.
• The measurements such as kilometres are in UK English, so therefore traveling should be travelling to also be in UK English.

• Conversely, since the article is written in US English, measurements should use US spelling.

• Looked up the meaning of the word demerge, I don't believe that is the meaning intended here. It could be that the word emerge would work better.... The Eastern Østfold Line, that demerges from the Østfold Line at Ski...

• Alternatively branches.

• Same in this sentence ... Just south of Oslo Central Station, each of the two tracks will demerge, and follow different routes. but here diverge would be better than demerge. and ... The inbound track will hook up with the Østfold Line at Sjursøya, while the outbound track will demerge at Loenga. use diverge.
• Running parallel to the Østfold Line, it will be dimensioned for 200 km/h (120 mph). Instead of the word dimensioned perhaps constructed or engineered would be a better word.
• Is South Corridor the name of a route or just a description of the track? If just a description no capitals are needed.

• The South Corridor is a name given to the transport corridor south of Oslo towards Follo and Østfold. It consists of both the Østfold and Follo Line, as well as the E6 and E18, and arguably parts of the Oslo T-bane.

• To fully utilize this, and possibly built the rest of the Østfold Line for high speeds, tit is necessary to increase The word tit should be exchanged for it.
• Between 1924 and 1939, NSB build double track along the route between Ski and Oslo. ...Change build to built to keep in past tense.
• From 1989 to 1996, NSB upgraded the track from Ski to Sandbuka, just north of Moss, to double track. A lot of commas, with subject and predicate of sentence seperated. Check to see if this says your intent also more directly.... From 1989 to 1996, NSB upgraded the track to double track from Ski to Sandbuka, just north of Moss. '
• This section is capable of speeds of 200 km/h (120 mph), but is only permitted at 160 km/h (99 mph) due to short distances between stops and limitations of the rolling stock. Copy edit again... This section is capable of speeds of 200 km/h (120 mph), however the maximum is 60 km/h (99 mph) due to short distances between stops and limitations of the rolling stock.
• Construction of the latter—christened the Asker Line—started in 2001, with the first section from Asker to Sandvika opening in 2005, and the second section planned to open in 2011' Keep all the tenses the same... Construction of the latter—christened the Asker Line—started in 2001, and the first section from Asker to Sandvika opened in 2005, while the second section is expected to open in 2011.
• Capacity restrains the track from more than twelve trains per hour, including hindering any freight trains to operate during rush hour. This could be re-worded also ....Rail line capacity restrains the track to twelve trains per hour, as well freight train movement is hampered during rush hour. ... or ... Rail line capacity restrains the track to twelve trains per hour, as well freight train operation is hampered during rush hour.
• This is in part because there are up to four trains making stops at most stations, and these delay all express and regional trains that follow. copyedit to...The bottleneck occurs because there are up to four trains making stops at stations, and these stops delay all subsequent express and regional trains that follow.
• Travel time remains at 22 minutes for direct trains to Ski, and 31 minutes for commuter trains. The speed limit along most of the line is 80 km/h (50 mph). two short sentences could be combined perhaps....Travel time is 22 minutes for direct trains to Ski, and 31 minutes for commuter trains with a speed limit of 80 km/h (50 mph) along most of the line.
• This line would most likely use the Follo Line for the initial distance from Oslo change to This line would most likely use the Follo Line for the initial routing from Oslo.
• The report also argued that the intermediate stops would decrease capacity and increase travel time for all passengers traveling from south of Ski. copyedit needed...The report also argued that the intermediate stops would decrease capacity and increase travel time for all passengers departing south of Ski and travelling north.
• The exclusion would also increase the importance of Ski as a regional public transport hub..The exclusion of Kolbotn would also increase the importance of Ski as a regional public transport hub.
• The permanent way will initially be built for 200 km/h (120 mph), but will be dimensioned for later upgraded to 250 km/h (160 mph). a possible re-wording ...The rail line will initially be built for 200 km/h (120 mph), but will allow for later upgrades to 250 km/h (160 mph).
• The Eastern Østfold Line, that demerges from the Østfold Line at Ski, was during parts of the planning only being considered to connect to the slower line, but this has been changed so the local trains from Eastern Østfold also can travel to Oslo faster along the new tracks

I have come back to this sentence again...Plans to connect the Eastern Østfold Line to the slower line were considered where the Eastern Østfold Line diverges from the Østfold Line at Ski. However this has changed so the local trains from Eastern Østfold can travel to Oslo faster along the new tracks.

• before reaching Oslo S. is Oslo S. meaning Oslo Station?
• If the Kolbotn-alternative is chosen, the Østfold Line will be rebuilt to follow a similar path in Kolbotn. If the Kolbotn-alternative for the Follo Line is chosen, the Østfold Line will be rebuilt to follow a similar path to the Kolbotn station, which will require a new station building to accomodate the two lines.
• However, the two lines will enter the station at two levels, with the Follo Line running in a tunnel below, and the Østfold Line being at-grade above. An all-new station building must therefore be built. .... For this alternate route the two lines will enter the Kolbotn station at two levels, with the Follo Line running in a tunnel below, and the Østfold Line running at-grade above.
• There are some 404 errors or URLs not found from my server. Let me know if it just an internet problem or if they are web pages not found for you as well. The two URLs which I could open did verify the article where given...Christin Atlar (2008-07-04). "Dropper Vevelstad - vurderer Kolbotn (GGOD) "Indre på sporet" (in Norwegian). (GOOD) If these URLs still open for you, will request second opinion of a reviewer who can open the URLs to check this aspect.
  • http://www.jernbaneverket.no/multimedia/archive/01821/Jernbanestatistikk_1821829a.pdf
  • http://www.jernbaneverket.no/prosjekter/pagaende/skoyen_asker/bakgrunn/article.jhtml?articleID=1590986
  • http://www.jernbaneverket.no/multimedia/archive/01822/Hovedrapport_for_u_1822794a.pdf
  • http://www.jernbaneverket.no/multimedia/archive/01770/H_yhastighet_-opps_1770898a.pdf
  • http://www.jernbaneverket.no/prosjekter/pagaende/oslos_ski/article.jhtml?articleID=1843231
  • http://www.jernbaneverket.no/multimedia/archive/01822/Fakta_om_Follobane_1822092a.pdf

• In part my fault. The National Rail Administration moved all their content a few weeks ago, and I have not had time to move the ca. 1000 external links and references yet.... if I ever get around to it.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   As noted above there are some improvements needed in the prose of the text

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   As noted above, several sources used are no longer available.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Would like to read more sources to confirm broadness.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The history and talk page check out all right that there are no edit wars. As this route is a planned route, has construction been finalized that it will indeed proceed? I will seek out advice on this planning aspect of whether it is stable for GA.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   The image is OK to use.

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

   The article shows an image of a station of the southern terminus of the line

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   ?

GA On Hold

This article has been placed on hold, because a few minor changes are needed. Generally, all the information about the station is present, written well and well refereces. A copyedit was needed as the english was incorrect in places. This article will be watched for seven days, and if no siginificant improvement is made may be failed without notice. Please feel free to ask me questions here or on my talk page. Good luck! :Please leave me a note here or on my talk page when you feel you have completed the changes I have asked so that I can review the article again. As noted above I will also seek advice as well.SriMesh | talk 22:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have started to search for prior decisions about stable and proposed...Archive 2 states that stable refers to onflicts between editors and edit wars about the progression of the article.

Here is one discussion Archive 9 which states that for proposed or future routes a GA reviewer can just fail most of that kind of article for stability ...So now that I have done some investigation will proceed to fail this article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Kind regards SriMesh | talk 23:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. All the matters have now been seen to. I am a bit perplexed about the rationale for failing the article.it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. To quote criterion 5: "it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." Then the reviewer quotes a two-year-old talk page debate (with three entries) where a question is raised whether or not a future sport event is aligable for GA status, in which a comment is made that such a nomination could be failed, based on stability. I have a hard time seeing how this relates to the Follo Line. The 2008 Summer Olympics is an event which, during the several weeks it lasts, is necessarily going to be very unstable due to the large change in information due to some 300 sporting events taking place, and daily updates to sport entries and tables. The Olympic article will look completely different before and after the event takes place. This railway line will also change in the next decade, but considerably less dramatically. By the time it openes, in ten years, additional information on constrction will have to be added. Again, this is a matter of information being added in the course of years, not hourly. Also, railway lines tend to be very predictive, i.e. there are usually no surprises with the opening that will significantly alter the articles content, because of the large scale of the project, transperency and predicability. There is no criteria stating that something cannot acchieve GA status prior to completion, as long as it can remain stable on a day-to-day basis after the article is through the review. Remember that also "finished" railway lines will change after construction, since operations will change, accidents may occur and railways be rebuilt. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Follo Line/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review. Checking quick fail criteria. ✗ Fail

I have to fail this article for GA status as it is a clear example of WP:CRYSTAL. As construction is not expected to start until 2013 apparently, I feel that this is too far in the future. Cited references are in Norwegian and thus unverifiable. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. However, I strongly disagree with your statements. Concerning violation of WP:CRYSTAL, the policy states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Could you explain to me what part of the policy the article violates? The entire article is verifiable through media reports, government documents and documents produced by DNV, one of the worlds most reliable third parties. The amount of detailed government reports and media coverage clearly establish notability, per WP:N. As for verifiablility, WP:V states: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly." Again, the article fully meets the criteria. Just like there is no requirement that all sources are online, there never has ever been a requirement that souces must be in English. You cannot just invent policy or GA criteria when reviewing articles. Hopefully, there has only been a misunderstanding, and a full review can be conducted. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As posted at WP:GAR I am happy to reinstate the nomination if you so wish, but I personally will not review this or any other article containing mostly references to foreign language sources which I cannot check or to articles about projects four years in the future. Cheers, Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Follo Line/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ---Dough4872 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments:

1. The sentence "To fully utilize this, and possibly built the rest of the Østfold Line for high speeds, it is necessary to increase capacity through the bottleneck from Oslo to Ski." sounds awkward.
2. The sentence "Rail line capacity restrains the track to twelve trains per hour, as well freight train operation is hampered during rush hour." needs to be reworded.
3. Even though this is a future rail line, I assume the article is not currently going through rapid changes.

I am placing the article on hold. ---Dough4872 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Regarding 3), there is very little happening at the moment; all the important decisions have been made (start time, route, to bypass Vevelstad and Kolbotn), and it will take about eight years until completed. Unless something unusual happens, this article will remain fairly stable the next eight years, with a few amendments to construction progress and adding a few dates. The article about the Østfold Line will have changed a lot more in that time that this article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I will pass the article. ---Dough4872 16:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

top speed

It is stated: "The rail line will initially be built for 200 km/h (120 mph), but will allow for later upgrades to 250 km/h (160 mph).", but witouth sources, who (and when) claimed this about "initially be built for 200 km/h" ? The ministry of transportation (Samferdelsdepartementet, SD) (who decides everything in this project) states this in their letter to JBV September 13th 2010 [1]: "SD legger til grunn at det i det videre utredningsarbeidet vurderes løsninger for Follobanen som ikke er til hinder for en ev. framtidig høyhastighetsbane med en dimensjonerende hastighetsstandard på 250 km/t eller mer" which (google translation) means: "SD assumes that in the further assessment work valued solutions for Follo path that is not an obstacle to a future high-speed line with a standard design speed of 250 km / h or more". So I am sort of wondering who says they're not going to build for 250 km/h in the first place, when they actually plan to have 250 km/h (or even more)? :-) Yosh3000 (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here the National Rail Administration claims the speed will be 200 km/h. The "problem" with this sort of line is that to reach a speed of 200 km/h, a train needs about 10 km to accelerate and a similar (perhaps slightly shorter section) to decelerate. So on a 22 km line, there is little possibility to reach 250 km/h (unlike on a stretch of for instance 100 km). Also, NSB does not operate any trains which are able to run faster than 210 km/h. Therefore, the speed limit on the route will be 200 km/h. Should more lines be built further south, the line may be upgraded to a higher speed to allow these trains to reach 250 km/h while still on the Follo Line. In preparation, the line is planned to be built straight enough to allow this (thus the term "dimensioned for"). Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but i'm still sort of unsure of the sentence. It is stated: "The rail line will initially be built for 200 km/h (120 mph), but will allow for later upgrades to 250 km/h (160 mph)", so what exactly will these upgrades consist of? (When it is allready dimensioned for 250 km/t). Just putting up a new speed limit sign? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "The rail line will initially be built for 250 km/h (160 mph), but the speed limit will be only 200 km/t (124 mph)." ? Yosh3000 (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the current information on this page is wrong, after the National Rail Administration has "changed their mind". The line seems now to be planned for 250 km/h (or faster), according to [2]. Thanks for pointing this out. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. However, since the planning program now very recently was approved, i suppose they will come with a new version of "Fakta om Follobanen" (bacis facts) pretty soon (i've e-mailed them about this). The recent version is from 2008, sometime before december (at latest) when it was published that Kolbotn and Velvestad were no longer part of the project. This meant that it would be 19 km highspeed (no dayzone, no stops. again definetly decided in the planning program from 5 days ago), which again led to the higher possible speed. They really should publish a new version of this simultaneously with the publication of the decided planning program. The 2008 version is just confusing now... Yosh3000 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 version was released some minutes ago: http://www.jernbaneverket.no/PageFiles/12290/Fakta%20om%20Follobanen%202010.pdf . Yosh3000 (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Follo Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120905150305/http://www.oblad.no/article/20080704/NYHETER/36363783 to http://www.oblad.no/article/20080704/NYHETER/36363783
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120806034322/http://www.jernbaneverket.no/PageFiles/12290/Fakta%20om%20Follobanen%202010.pdf to http://www.jernbaneverket.no/PageFiles/12290/Fakta%20om%20Follobanen%202010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)