This looks to be a short but reasonably well referenced article, so I will not quick fail it. I will now review the article, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.
History -
You have a citation to confirm the statement:" The station was opened in 1879 as part of Østfoldbanen.[4]" However, my information is that the line that opened in 1879 was the Vestre linje of the Smaalensbanen (Smaalens Line). The name Østfoldbanen does not appear to have been adopted until 1930 (quite a few years after this station opened).
Interestingly, no mention of electrification - the track appears to be capable of supporting electric traction.
Facilities -
The infobox has a 2007 picture and I've also looked at Rom Eiendom, which has a 2010 picture. What I appear to be looking at is a traditional timber-clad station building that I could have seen in Norway in the 1970s, perhaps back to the 1920s. I'm happy to accept that the trackwork is new, as is the bridge and the electrical installations, but these views do not appear to be very similar to the picture given in Sonsveien Station. I think some further explanation and possibly a picture of the gluelam walkway is needed to clarify the statement that Vestby is in the same style as Sonsveien.
This is intended to both introduce the article and summarise the main points (see WP:Lead). It appears to me that the half-sentence "The station opened in 1879" is the summary and the rest of it is the introduction. I appreciate that this is a short article, but the lead is too short. The "summary" content needs to be expanded: e.g. no mention of the line doubling (electrication) and the station upgrading.
At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I still have concerns over this article. I'm coming to the conclusion that this is more of a C-class or B-class article than a GA. What is present in the article is referenced, but there is very little substance. For instance:
History and Facilities -
No mention of the electrification of the line.
I've travelled on the Norwegian railway system (but not this line) some twenty five years ago, and what I see is are wooden station buildings that could well date back to that time, possibly back even the 1920s. However, I've not sure that the colour scheme is original. Either these are original station buildings or a copy of one. If its not a copy, then I suspect that that its an original building and the upgrade was merely the addition of an new platform and possibly the conversion of the goods yard into a car park.
The 1989 upgrade is mentioned twice but no details are given (see my comment above). There appears to be a new road bridge, but no details are give, possibly it was needed to give clearance for the wires, or to provide access to the car park, but is this mere speculation on my part - its not mentioned nor addressed by the the article.
I suspect that there might be some WP:Undue weight in respect of the Gluelam bridge. I can't for instance see any similiarity with this picture: Sonsveienstation
Unfortunately, mention of ticket machines, car parking spaces, taxi and bus stands don't provide an adequate substitute for detailed information. Pyrotec (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry for erecting a straw man, but for about half a year ago, you passed the Eidsvoll Verk Station article, which has less than half as many references than this article, and has even less substance (5,332 bytes compared to 9,233 bytes). --Eisfbnore (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Eidsvoll Vick station dates back to September 1989, it has little history since it's only 11 years old. However, returning to my review above, I have raised no objections to lack of references since I regard the article as being statisfactorily referenced. My objections arise from lack of detail on a station that is at least one hundred and thirty years old (it's 131 years old); and statements that don't appear to conform with images provided. I checked, I travelled on several railways in the Bergen, Voss, etc, region in 1974 and the station building that is shown in the info box is no different for other stations on the Nowegian railway system that I saw then; I also reviewed Numedal Line (See for instance Gvammen stasjon and Numedalsbanen Rollag). Gvammen stasjonRollag What I see on Vestby Station is a traditional station building (they seem to be known as "Swiss cottage style", acording to your Ås Station article). Why not say so; why pretend that it is not there. I've not been to Sonsveien Station, so the only picture I have seen is the one on the right (top right); and the picture of Vestby looks nothing like Sonsvien, yet the article states: "The station is therefore designed in the same style as the new Sonsveien Station, with a modern walkway over the tracks." Perhaps it is a problem of translation. I think that Vestby still has an original station building, but it could be a re-build after the fire; together with a new gluelam bridge, i.e the walkway is modern. I'm quite happy to come at look at Vestby station if you come and look at my local local railway stations. But what I suspect I will see is an original station building (possibly, a re-build or a re-creation), one new platform (possibly two), a new gluelam bridge, new road bridge(s), overhead wires. The article mentions the gluelam bridge and it mentions to fire in the station building in July 2010 and its hours of opening, but I see no other mention of the station building. Having looked at the Vestby station picture, I see a bit of the walkway that was not obvious before: however, on the basis of what is shown in the Vestby station picture Vestby looks more like Ås Station than Sonsveien Station. Pyrotec (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Just about adequate. For a station of this age there is little information. It's not clear whether this is due to lack of secondary references, since they are likely to be all in Norsk its not too easy for the reviewer to cross check.
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for taking the time to review another silly Norwegian railway station! ;-P --Eisfbnore (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I don't think Norwegian railway station are silly, I just can't read Norsk. If I could I'd fix some the minor problems myself. Pyrotec (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I just saw that you already had GA reviewed six railway stations, of which four were Norwegian. And by the way, Google was my friend when I was writing the article, and found almost all the refs for me just by letting me search "Vestby stasjon", and I think another handy tool from Google could come in handy for a person who cannot read Norsk... --Eisfbnore (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I reviewed an airport article for Asenikk and the problem was a lack of citations for some "physical" thing. I suggested that in the UK that would be covered by a Planning Application, Asenikk then used that to find an old site plan. If this station was in the UK, its redevelopment would have been covered by a Planning Application with map and plans. If we'd got into an argument over a Norwegian article I'd use Google and a dictionary (I have Engelsk-Norsk dictionary that I bought in Bergen in 1983) to go through the source, but I very much doubt I could use google to search for station planning applications (I'm not sure what your process is, or its name) for Vestby in Norwegian. But if I found one, google could convert it into piggeon English (its good but not too good). Pyrotec (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
