Talk:Ekebergbanen (company)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I've waited sometime now to review this article. The nominator requested a slight delay on 10 February 2011 as a proposed re-write was do to happen on the Weekend of 12/13 February 2011. As far as I can see this did not happen. I requested an update on 19th February (here: User talk:Eisfbnore), the revision is promised "soon"; consequently, the nomination is being reviewed "as is". Pyrotec (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for my delay. -- Eisfbnore  talk 20:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Inital comments
I normally review nominations section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last, and will so here. However, I would note that I regard the Lead as being inadequate: comments on it will follow later. Pyrotec (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * History -
 * The first paragraph looks quite reasonable, but I have one question. Ref 3, used seven times comes from Store norske leksikon. Wikipeida is not regarded as a WP:Reliable source since anyone can edit it, vandalise it, etc; presumably Store norske leksikon is being regarded as a Reliable Source on the basis that the article has named editor/supervisor - Nils Carl Aspenberg?
 * Yes. One must have a permission to edit SNL. Aspenberg is the author of the entry, while Petter Henriksen is the editor of the encyclopedia. -- Eisfbnore  talk 20:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The next four one-line-paragraphs are not liked by wikipeida; and I'm, not sure why they are in the article. They read as a chrological summary of the company, with the details given in the Tram lines, Bus operations and Trams; but they also contain details that are not in the following three sections.


 * The first of these is about buses, so I'll accept that one. However, I think the word overtaken in: "This bus route was in 1953 overtaken by Oslo Sporveier and renumbered to line 71", is a typo and the English phrase "taken over" was intended?
 * The third of these "one-liners" states: "The Ekeberg Line was extended from Sæter to Ljabru on 17 September 1941,[3] which originally was single-tracked." However, this is the first use of the phrase "The Ekeberg Line" (apart from the Lead). The company is called Ekebergbanen A S, so I assume that the original route was the "The Ekeberg Line". Perhaps I am being unkind: I know what Ekebergbanen A S and Ekebergbanen mean in English, it just that the line was not named in English in the first paragraph.
 * The third "one-liner" aught to be merged into the first paragraph.
 * The phrase "... ,which originally was single-tracked" is somewhat confusing. It seems: firstly, to be an after-thought; secondly its suggests that the original Stortorvet to Sæter line was converted from single track to double, perhaps treble track, but that is not mentioned so far in the article (but see my comments later on the Tram lines section); and, finally, it raises the unanswered question: how many tracks did the Sæter to Ljabru extension have?


 * It is not clear why the one-sentence paragraph: "While waiting for the Gullfisk-trams, Ekebergbanen borrowed trams from Bærumsbanen until 1974.[7]". Well I do know the answer since I reviewed Ekeberg Line at WP:GAN, but its not in this article.

..to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Tram lines -
 * Quite a reasonable, short paragraph. However, the final sentence: "The remaining part of the network was eventually double track[13] and electrified at 1,200 volts direct current.[14]" is rather vague. I'd like to see eventually (my emphasis) replaced with sometime less vague, such as a date or date-range.
 * It's not clear what voltage these lines worked at: in this section it states: "The remaining part of the network was eventually double track[13] and electrified at 1,200 volts direct current.[14]", but in the Trams section, it states: "They were all capable of both running on 1,200 V on the Ekeberg and Simenbråten Lines, and 600 V in the city". Perhaps the problem is due to the phrase "in the city", since the article does not state what part(s) of the line are in the city and which part(s) are not.


 * Trams -
 * The following sentence seems to be missing a word, possibly between TO and THEY: "However, they were not connected to they would receive the same current in the city as on the hill section, thus the trams had only half the power when running on the 600 V section, with each motor either running at 150 V or 300 V."


 * The WP:Lead -
 * This is intended to both introduce the article and summarise the main points. It is not too bad as an introduction; but it has very little summary. For instance, there is nothing about the bus route being taken over by Oslo Sporveier; nor Oslo Sporveier taking over ownership of the company; nor the track doubling.

At this point I'm put the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm now closing this review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)