Talk:Common Tunnel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeCommon Tunnel was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 2, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 19, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that when the Common Tunnel opened in 1928 it made the Holmenkoll Line the first underground railway in Scandinavia?

Thoughts[edit]

"allowing a higher diameter—and thus a higher ampere" in the East End section needs re-writing, but I am not quite sure what it means. Diameter is only correct if the third rail is circular, and normally, increasing the voltage (from 600 to 750) results in lower current (measured in amperes). If the current and the voltage are increased, the trains are a lot more powerful. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the change from overhead wire to third rail which results in a higher ampere, not the decrease in voltage. I've rephrased the sentence so it is hopefully better now. Thanks for the feedback. Arsenikk (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Common Tunnel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 20:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I have made a number of copy-edits[1], but word choice is still poor. I think a thorough copy-edit is necessary.
    Consistency: US English spelling is used, but dates are in British English format.
    Service has Each service has a 15-minute headway, but East end has The permitted headway on the common section was set to 90 seconds, compared to 120 seconds on the branch lines.
    Both municipalities wanted the redemption right, but this was given to the state What does this mean?
    In 1925, Holmenkolbanen was found not guilty in the lawsuit regarding the damage to the nearby properties, but later on: On 16 May 1931, the Supreme Court found Holmenkolbanen guilty in the lawsuit regarding the real estate damage. needs further explanation - was this on appeal?
  • Yes, the case was appealed in the Supreme Court. I've tried to clarify this, with reference, though the grammar in the text I added wasn't too good. :( --Eisfbnore • talk 18:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As stated above the prose is very poor and the whole needs rewriting in good plain English.
    Although changes have been made there are still a number of problems with the prose.
    Nationaltheatret offers shorter transfer distance Sure missing a preposition.
    the Holmenkollen Line was opened as a light rail between Majorstuen Surely something like a "light rail line"
    They could sign trackage rights withKristiania Elektriske Sporvei to usethe Briskeby Line to reach the city center. Shoddy.
    On 9 June 1911, the city council had nonetheless changed its mind, and voted to accept the tunnel if the terminus was moved to the intersection of Karl Johans gate and Ruseløkkveien, but this was rejected by the company.[7] On 27 May 1909, Aker Municipal Council voted in favor of the tunnel, and on 9 June 1911 the proposal was passed by the Parliament of Norway. Just about suffices as a bare statement of fact, but why did they change their minds?
    Construction on the central parts of the tunnel started in 1912. "on"?
    In 1915, the city launched a competition for a plan for city's light rail system. However, the invitations were not issued until two years later. Why the delay?
    Really this is very poor. Please get your prose copy-edited by someone with a good command of plain English before nominating in the future.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Inconsistency in citations: All Norwegian or other foreign language sources need to have the language in the citation.
    The article appears to be well cited and I assume good faith for off-line and Norwegian sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article appears to cover the subject well and is focussed.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Captions: Two MX3000 trains at Majorstuen, which is proposed moved eastwards to an underground location is poor prose; also Now retired T1300 train at Jernbanetorget; licensing OK
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, this article needs to be rewritten in good plain English. At present the prose is rather poor. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The prose is still very poor throughout with poor word choice and phrasing. Thus it does not meet the GA criteria and so i will not be listing at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, but I managed to lose my first attempt at a copyedit and was a bit dismayed. Anyhow, I've done it again and hopefully it is much better. I agree that the prose was not that great in this article, although I'm a bit uncertain why. I've addressed all your specific points, although I retain the use of date formatting, in part because it is the date formatting I always use, in part because it is a formatting also used in the US and Canada (although less common than month first), and most importantly because it is the standard date formatting used in Norway. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Arsenikk (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Common Tunnel. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Common_Tunnel&oldid=1201070510"