Talk:Gardermoen Line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGardermoen Line has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 12, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Kløfta[edit]

Gardermobanen runs on a track which is not next to a platform at Kløfta, so Kløfta should maybe not be marked as a station on the track? Jerazol (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that, but the maps I wound on the Norwegian Wikipedia showed that Kløfta was on Gardermobanen. So I really don't know. If you are confident in your assumptions, please go ahead and make the nessesary changes. If the trains can't stop at Kløfta (like it looks to seem on the pictures) then Kløfta is not on Gardermobanen in my opinion. Arsenikk (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gardermo Line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I'm doing the review at this moment...it shouldn't take long, as I've already read it! (it's very interesting!) Anyway, I'll get back to you soon! Cheers, —the_ed17— 17:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Am I right in thinking that refs at the end of paragraphs cover the entire paragraphs?
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Both Image:Østbanen sjøsiden.jpg and Image:Eidsvoll Verk stasjon Norway.jpg need to be attributed to the authors...
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


  • Any way to expand the lead to cover the controversy that occurred during the building of the railway?
  • Do you like my change to the lead? (I don't really know if I like it myself...)
  • This article needs a copy-editing to get rid of the dirt underneath its fingernails...could you ask a member of Guild of Copy-Editors to help?
  • Ref #7, de-link the author please! (He has no article here....)
  • Is there any way to find sources that are in English....? (Not too many people on this side of the pond speak Norwegian or Swedish...)

Anyway, there are a few issues that need to be addressed, so I'll put this on hold for a while...if you need any help, feel free to ask! Cheers, —the_ed17— 17:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and feedback. I will address the concerns at first opportunity. The change of flow in the lead is good, but I think some of the words are a bit excessive in complexity (in particular geriatric). Ref #7 is a newspaper (not a person) and I will try to make a stub article on it (it definitively deserves one). As for sources, I can look again, but most of the sources are either English or bilingual, and only details that would not reach the international press or international publications are in Norwegian, so I do not think it will be possible to substitute them. If you want them verified, I can get another Norwegian speaker to look at it. Arsenikk (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I gave it a try =)
Alright, (some guideline somewhere in the caverns of MoS) says that redlinks are allowed if someone is planning to create them, so ok.
Sorry for giving you this impression, but it's not that I don't believe you! I just wanted to know if it was possible. Apparently it's not, so no problem here. :) I'll keep it on hold until you get rid of my dumb edits to the lead ;D and then it will pass easily. Cheers! —the_ed17— 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the article a copyedit and found two dozen grammar errors, so it may be good enough now, but I can send it on the the league if you still want to (we both want a well written article, but I cannot see my own errors). I swapped an image, and I believe the latter one (of Oslo S) is "attributed in a reasonable manner" by means of attribution if the image is clicked on. As for the paragraph refs, that is a correct assumption (one I believe is in line with WP:CITE). I will now create the Hamar Dagblad stub and the route map. Thanks again for the review, and please comment if there is something I have overseen now. Arsenikk (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's good/close enough (and it's the Guild now)... =) I saw these, however:
  • "The line is owned by the Norwegian National Rail Administration." Which line? ...or both?
  • "The principle of the airport construction..." What does this mean?
Yes, it is in line with CITE, but I always check to make sure. xD
Looking good; almost there. —the_ed17— 21:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those concerns have been addressed now. Arsenikk (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'm on Wikibreak until tommorow...only reason why I am on is my mom, but she wants me off and I have to do homework. =/ Plus, I have a RL issue...freakin' girlfriends... I'll take a look at this as soon as I can. Cheers, —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 21:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it looks good. Passing now, so congrats. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 23:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, and especially with helping the article become a lot better. Your copyedits and feedback are much appreciated. Arsenikk (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Cheers, —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Route map[edit]

There appears to be a problem with route map, as the first two lines consist of the following symbols:

  • |-
  • | colspan="2" |


Pyrotec (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has changed a way back the code of the infobox so all routemaps in infoboxes are now showing this code (unless they have been manipulated). Arg. I'll look at it. Arsenikk (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main transport to the airport[edit]

My reference, which is in English and was published in 1996, which probably means it was written in 1994, says that it was intended that the Gardermobanen should attract at least half of the passengers to the airport. I can't read Norsk, so is that completely compatible with what is already in the article? That current statement is unreferenced, but I suspect that it has come form a Norwegian source.

This reference mentions a new link to the E6 and the Oslo Airport, Gardermoen#Ground transport provides more information about road transport. It looks like the railway has not met the at least 50 % target.Pyrotec (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found anything contradictory to that statement in any sources—by since I was in primary school in 1994 I could not vouch for it either (based on my contemporary understanding of politics). What I am certain about, is that the purpose of building the line was to create it as the main mode of transport to the airport. The Norwegian source (ref 12) only states results for year 2006 and the current 34% market share. Arsenikk (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly that reference is bilingual. The English version is here: [1] Can I suggest that in cases such as this you call up both the English and the Norsk versions, that should get rid some of the GA reviewer's concerns about lack of English references.Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging around. I am sorry, but things are a little confusing here. The link over is the one provided in ref 3, while ref 12 is a press release that I cannot for the life of me find on the English section of the web site (I have tried to find it several times before too without luck). Arsenikk (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voltage convertion[edit]

Gardermoen Line should convert from 15 kV 16 2/3Hz AC to 3 kV DC. 121.102.47.215 (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely not planned. What you personally think should not be discussed here since this discussion should be about the article, not about the actual railway, according to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --BIL (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gardermoen Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gardermoen Line. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gardermoen Line. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 14:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gardermoen_Line&oldid=1202213103"