Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ¡
Article talk (
|
history) ¡
Watch
Reviewer: SpinningSpark 17:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:*
Roa requires disambiguation
:*Until 1989, nearly all OsloâBergen 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".
:*OsloâBergen trains run via.... Past tense "OsloâBergen 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).
:*I would suggest a paragraph break before "It opened on 1 December 1909" and then run it together as one paragraph with what remains of the second para.
:*I do not understand the principle you are following when deciding which stations in the list to wikilink. 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.
:*there was a spur to a military camp. Is there still?
:*but the proposal met technical and political restrictions. 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.
:*as the rest of the lines west of Oslo suggest "as were the rest of the lines west of Oslo
:* NSB, should be given in full,
Norges Statsbaner?
:*starting from Roa in 1903, later than the sections across the mountain. suggest turning around the order here. 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.
:*Ă
l 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 RoaâHønefoss Line were the first to be electrified. Does that mean RoaâHønefoss was the second to be electrified? In which case suggest wording "were the next to be electrified."
:*was taken into use (two places). A more usual phrase is "was put into service" or "was put into operation".
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ¡
Article talk (
|
history) ¡
Watch
Reviewer: SpinningSpark 17:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:*
Roa requires disambiguation
:*Until 1989, nearly all OsloâBergen 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".
:*OsloâBergen trains run via.... Past tense "OsloâBergen 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).
:*I would suggest a paragraph break before "It opened on 1 December 1909" and then run it together as one paragraph with what remains of the second para.
:*I do not understand the principle you are following when deciding which stations in the list to wikilink. 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.
:*there was a spur to a military camp. Is there still?
:*but the proposal met technical and political restrictions. 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.
:*as the rest of the lines west of Oslo suggest "as were the rest of the lines west of Oslo
:* NSB, should be given in full,
Norges Statsbaner?
:*starting from Roa in 1903, later than the sections across the mountain. suggest turning around the order here. 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.
:*Ă
l 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 RoaâHønefoss Line were the first to be electrified. Does that mean RoaâHønefoss was the second to be electrified? In which case suggest wording "were the next to be electrified."
:*was taken into use (two places). A more usual phrase is "was put into service" or "was put into operation".