Talk:Lysaker Station/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Some minor prose issues that won't take too long to fix. However, the following sentence is too long and should be split by someone more familiar with the subject: "This includes the Oslo Commuter Rail, with two trains making all stops to Asker and Lillestrøm (line 400)—these serve all stations between Lysaker and Sandvika;[4] one from Drammen to Dal (line 440);[5] one from Kongsberg to Eidsvoll (line 450)[6] and one or two from Spikkestad to Moss (line 550)[7]—all these operate directly to Sandvika." "First a new double platform north of the present will be built, then the current will be dismantled and replaced with a new." - a wee bit unwieldy... best to rewrite or reorder the sentence. "The construction work is planned to be completed in 2009 and two years

later Askerbanen will be finished between Lysaker and Sandvika giving four tracks west of Lysaker." - also unwieldy... split into a couple sentences. "total capacity between Lysaker and Asker will increase with eleven trains per hour due to the new line." - increase by eleven trains per hour (11 trains added), or to eleven trains per hour (11 trains total)? Centimeter values in "Curve Controversy" need to be converted to inches using {{convert}}

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   "The reason for the expansion is to increase the capacity of the West Corridor from Oslo to Drammen, by having four tracks between Lysaker." - according to whom? The statement should be backed up by a reliable source.

and Asker.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   "This will be an absolute criteria in 2011 when Askerbanen is completed to Lysaker." - what criteria? Who set the requirement, and is it set in stone?

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. 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):

   A real picture of the station would be appreciated!

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Looks good... let me know when the changes are in. —Rob (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; you have been doing an impressive job at the GA reviews the last few days. I have rewritten those sections you have pointed out. If they need more work just shout out, I tend to get rather blind to my own prose. {{convert}} added. As for a real picture, I fear that there is none here, on the commons, or any other place I can find them free; I live some 600 km away so I can't just go down and take snapshot (I would if it was in town). Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a few changes for comprehension. Overall though, I think it meets the GA criteria now. —Rob (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)