Talk:Roa–Hønefoss Line/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Sp in ni ng  Spark  17:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

:*Until 1989, nearly all Oslo–Bergen trains have used the line, although it was also possible to reach Oslo from Hønefoss via the Randsfjord Line, albeit terminating at Oslo West Station, rather than the larger Oslo East Station. This sentence has too many clauses and needs breaking up. "Have" should be "had" (past tense). :*to allow the latter access to Oslo. Better "which allowed the latter access to Oslo". :*also saw local train. Not grammatical, better "also ran a local service". :*Oslo–Bergen trains run via.... Past tense "Oslo–Bergen trains ran via..." :*...and is single track. The statement is out of place here, it would be better following the route information in the first half of the first para - unless it is meant that it became single track upon electrification, in which case that should be clarified. :*It runs through the municipalities of Ringerike in Buskerud and Jevnaker and Lunner in Oppland. Likewise this would be better earlier in the lede. Also too many "and"s, a better style might be "Ringerike (Buskerud), Jevnaker (Oppland) and ..." Alternatively, just give the counties and leave the details of the municipalities to later in the article. This information needs to be repeated in the body of the text in any case - the lede should be a summary of the article, not contain any new information (MOS:LEAD).
 * Lede


 * I've redone a lot of the order now, so all history is in the second paragraph and everything else in the first. Arsenikk (talk)  16:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that some stations may be so small and insignificant that they are never going to have articles. Nevertheless, there are inconsistencies: Jevnaker Station for instance, is linked in the list, the route map and its image caption. Grindvoll Station on the other hand is linked in its image caption, but not in the list. There is a link on the route map, but this goes to Grindvoll, not the station. The whole article needs reviewing for consistency. Also, check that you are complying with WP:REPEATLINK.
 * Route
 * I've removed the links to all closed stations. While they are viable for a article, I'm not going to be creating them any time soon, and I doubt anyone else will either. Roa and Hønefoss are still served by other lines, that's why they were created in the first place. Arsenikk (talk)  16:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there still?
 * Gone, thus the use of past tense. Arsenikk (talk)  16:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Images
 * All check out

This is not very clear. Does it mean that the proposal met with political opposition? Or does it mean that political considerations imposed technical restrictions? From the following text it would seem that the engineering proposal was narrow gauge but the politicians insisted on standard gauge to cater for the military, but this is not explicit. Please clarify.
 * History
 * I've rephrased it. The sentence is meant as an introduction to the following paragraph. Arsenikk  (talk)  16:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is now in the lead. Arsenikk (talk)  16:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The following sentence continues to talk about the Roa section (I am presuming) and this will make it clearer. In fact, it might be better to have one sentence for the mountain section and then one sentence for the flat section. :*Ål is not mentioned previously as being a station and is not marked as a station on the route map. If it is on a different line, this should be stated :*On 16 August 1915, the station opened at Viul and on 1 October, the station was opened at Kistefoss. Suggest "A station was opened at Viul on 16 August 1915, and another at Kistefoss on 1 October." :* and it was during 1940 moved to run via the Drammen and Randsfjord Lines. I cannot quite fathom the meaning of that. Does it mean the locomotives were taken away and given to another line? :* "Geilo", another destination not previously mentioned. Is it on this line, or are the trains merely using this line as a route to it? :* After the first section, from Bergen to Voss, was completed in 1954, the Gjøvik Line and the Roa–Hønefoss Line were the first to be electrified. Does that mean Roa–Hønefoss was the second to be electrified? In which case suggest wording "were the next to be electrified."
 * Yes, that is correct. When I think of it, using that wording would be correct in Norwegian, but not in English. Language is a funny thing. Arsenikk (talk)  16:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It can mean that in English also, but your sentence order here made it ambiguous.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A more usual phrase is "was put into service" or "was put into operation".


 * References
 * Aspenberg. According to Google books, the title is Fra Roa til Bergen: historien om Bergensbanen, which is not as stated in the article.
 * Added. I tend to leave out any subtitles that are not on the side of the book, but either way is fine for me. Arsenikk (talk)  16:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not the subtitle that is concerning me, it is the main title. Article = Fra Røa til Hønefoss, Google = Fra Roa til Bergen.  Is the ISBN incorrect, or have Google just got the title wrong.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  18:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. There is a place called Røa, and there is even a Røa Line, and sometimes I get the places confused (even though they are nowhere near each other). Arsenikk (talk)  18:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I had just assumed that was Google not coping with the "ø". This is still not what I am trying to highlight though.  Article = Hønefoss, Google = Bergen is the problem.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  20:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was embarrassing from my side. <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  22:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Got there in the end, I was starting to wonder if we were speaking different languages - Norwegian maybe! Pleasure doing business with you, passing article now.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  23:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than that, I'm taking the content of the references on good faith as I do not read Norwegian.


 * Wikiproject Trains
 * This article is within the scope of Wikiproject Trains but does not appear to be compliant with the projects' manual of style. I am not familiar with this requirement so I suggest you review it yourself.  I was not sure whether the applicable section was "companies" or "services", they seem to have omitted a section for "lines".  However, in both cases the required order of sections is not as in this article, they both require the history section to come first.  There will need to be some adjustment of logical flow and wikilinking to make this happen.
 * The manual of style you refer to is an essay, and as far as I have seen, holds not project consensus. Unfortunately, it also has a strong US bias, which is why there is no mention of "lines", but instead focuses on companies and services. There is no reason to have to follow this MOS, and frankly it just repeats part of the main MOS, interprets WP:N and states a lot of obvious things, in addition to having opinions on things it shouldn't. The suggested subsection list is almost silly, as if doesn't take into consideration important issues such as rolling stock, and any CEOs worth mentioning should probably go straight into the history section. I also do not understand how "Major service areas" and "Territory and/or station list" differ, or why the CEO list should be in between. Applying that list to for instance Ofotbanen (company), a typical new European railway company, is nearly impossible. If you are concerned with route before history, I used to write history first. But after reading perhaps hundreds of other articles about railways I was little familiar with, I found it very difficult to understand the history without first understanding the geography. <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  16:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. as you say, it is marked as an essay, but on the other hand, it is linked from the project page without comment as if it does have project consensus. I found it through the project page.  Nothing to do with this GA, but can I suggest that the essay is specifically marked as not having project consensus to avoid future misunderstandings.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  17:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 *  Sp in ni ng  Spark  19:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC) to 00:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review the article and the good suggestions for improvement. Unless noted, I have amended the article per your suggestions. <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk  <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  16:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the thorough review and sorry about all the confusion. <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  09:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)