Talk:Asker Line/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

I've read through the article a few times, so this part is mainly clarifying points that I don't understand and highlighting broken links, etc:

• Ref 1 is broken.
• Ref 2: this page also appears to be in English at [1], can we have both references?
• Ref 3 is broken
• I'm having trouble with the arithmetic of the third paragraph, i.e. "western Corridor had a capacity of 12–14 trains per hour in each direction west of Skøyen. The first section of the Asker Line, from Asker to Sandvika, increased the capacity with an additional two trains. The opening of Lysaker Station will increase capacity with four more, since all stations along the line between Oslo and Drammen will then have four platforms. When the whole line is completed, total capacity in the Western Corridor will be 26 trains per hour." Each way (12 to 14) + 2 + 4 = (18 to 20), total capacity = (36 to 40); or is it each way (12 to 14) + 1 + 2 = (14 to 17), total capacity = (28 to 34).
• Ref 4 is broken.
• Ref 5 is broken.
• Ref 6 is broken.
• Ref 7 is broken.
• I'm having trouble reconciling the text in Asker–Sandvika against that in the schematic diagram. I think the problem is that the journey in the second sentence in Asker–Sandvika is described from Sandvika to Asker, i.e. the opposite way to the section title and the first sentence; and Slependen Station does not appear in the schematic. diagram
• I tried ref 8 and got a page that appeared to be last week's news, so I put "jernbaneverket" in the search box (Søk på orapp.no:), but I could not find an article dated 29 June 2006. I can't read it, but I should be able to find it.
• Ref 9 is broken.
• Ref 10 is broken.
• Ref 11 is broken.
• Ref 13 is broken.
• Ref 14 is broken.
• Ref 15 is broken.

Pyrotec (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the links to the National Rail Administration; the seem to have redone their web site, and broken all links, some time the last few weeks. As for the article in Økonomisk Rapport, I will try to find a different source. As for the math, I do not follow you. It starts at 12–14, then increases by 2, then another 4, and finally ends up at 26 (i.e. the last increase is 6–8). I think the rephrasing of the merged section is a bit clearer (I definitively see what you mean). Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I did not understand that text. I agree that it is now much clearer.Pyrotec (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The current ref 16 is still broken.Pyrotec (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've also found this link, in English, can be be incorporated at a suitable point(s) - [2]?Pyrotec (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   More English-language references would be useful.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   More English-language references would be useful.

   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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations, I'm awarding GA status.Pyrotec (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and sorry for not being around to do much or quickly with it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)