Talk:Oslo Tunnel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Admrboltz (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments below.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * Once again, nice shots. Especially like the orange-tinted picture of the Nationaltheatret station.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing this article on hold
 * Once again, nice shots. Especially like the orange-tinted picture of the Nationaltheatret station.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing this article on hold


 * "double-track railway tunnel" - you should avoid running blue links together. If you can break these up some how, that would be good.
 * Do you have a reference for this in the MOS? I tried finding it and could not, but perhaps I overlooked it. Basically what you are asking me to do is to reduce the readability of the prose to enhance the linking, which sounds to me like dis-improving the article. However, I have added a comma to suit your needs. Arsenikk (talk)  11:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen it there, but its generally frowned upon - though it looks silly with the comma. I would remove it and just leave the links as is. --Admrboltz (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Through this section, there is 280 meters" and ", including a 220 meters (720 ft) island platform" - You are using convert, but you need to make these not be plural, it doesn't read well. I would use the  param and change it to 220-meter long island platform, etc. ✅
 * "It has a theoretical capacity of 40 trains per hour in each direction, and a applied capacity of 24 trains per hour in each direction." - If I am reading this right, its designed to handle up to 40/hr/dir, but only up to 24/hr/dir run? If so, reword the second half of the sentence.
 * I'm not quite sure what you want me to change. Any railway section has a theoretical and an applied capacity, as any delayed trains need to be put into available slots. Arsenikk (talk)  11:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading it again, it works as is. Nevermind --Admrboltz (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Minister of Transport and Communications Ronald Bye[30]" - comma between title and name, and move the citation to after a comma or full stop. ✅
 * Don't quite see how this is necessary, since the former part is a title, which can always be stuck in front of a name. However, there is nothing wrong with your solution either, so I you prefer it, that's fine with me. Arsenikk (talk)  11:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 625 million, 170 million, and NOK 920 million need to have their spaces replaced by a non breaking space. ✅
 * "thus increasing the capacity for the whole tunnel from 16 to 24 trains per direction per hour." - either your contradicting yourself, or reword this sentence to state that at most 24 trains per hour were in use by the various operators, because before you state the capacity is 40/hr/dir.
 * the theoretical capacity is 40. In general, it is the applied capacity which is stated, but I've added "applied" just to de-confuse people. Arsenikk (talk)  11:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "This gave 830 meters (2,720 ft) new tunnel, a new entrance hall and art. The station was dimensioned for 40,000 daily passengers." - how did blasting create art? Also, dimensioned → designed.
 * Done. Arsenikk (talk)  11:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The National Rail Administration has stated that it is unnecessary with more capacity through the West Corridor until at least 2040." reword. Does not make sense.
 * I've reworded, but I'm not quite sure what is not to understand, so bear with me if it's still ununderstandable. Arsenikk (talk)  11:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "When the new schedule plan from 2012 is introduced, NSB, the Airport Express Train and CargoNet have asked for more slots through the tunnel than is available." - reword.
 * Done. Arsenikk (talk)  11:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Other than the points above, this is a very nice article, and should easily pass after the above changes are made. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All done. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Arsenikk (talk)  11:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Passing. --Admrboltz (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)