Talk:Oslo Airport Station/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk)

Initial review

This article has the makings of a Good Article, but there are a few minor problems with the prose that need to be clarified first. There are:

• "WP:Lead" - "and there is a limited amount of corresponding bus routes." - What does this mean?

• Rephrased.

• In Services a single bus route is mentioned, but there are lots of coach connections. Coaches are not mentioned in the Lead.

• Done

• In Location - "Gardermoen is at kilometerage 51.85 km (32.22 mi) from Oslo S, but the actual distance is only 48.07 km (29.87 mi)." I think this is saying that Gardermoen is signed (or listed), as being 51.85 km from Oslo S but it is only 48.07 km. The first question is why the difference, is the sign wrong, etc, is this information encyclopaedic?

  I have explained the differenced, and slightly reworded the prose. Hope this is understandable. The km markers are included inn all station infoboxes, and between them they can be used to calculate the distance between all stations. Only where there are new lines (i.e. along the Gardermoen Line and a few more) do things get mixed up. I included both in the text so readers don't get confused between the infobox and the table (which use the sign-posted and real distance, respectivly).

• In Airport Express Train - what is the frequency of the Airport Express Train one every six hours (as the article appears to say) or six per hour?

• Rephrased to six per hour

• In Norges Statsbaner - is the Oslo commuter service one every hour, or is it one service per day that takes an hour.

• Rephrased to one per hour

• The Services section only mentions departures, presumably arrivals and departures is intended?

• Rephrased, ended up removing the word departure

Other comments:

• The table of stations / distances / fares should indicate that these fares are (presumably) 2008 prices - or it is intended to update the article every time there is a price rise (which is not the function of an encyclopaedia)?

  2009 stated. Interestingly enough, the prices have remained static since 1998. Had it been fluctuating on an annual basis, I would not have included the price. Distances, time and stations remain the same, though I will add Drammen when it opens, and adjust the time to Asker when the Asker Line opens in 2011 (changes in rail transport are very infrequent in Norway).

• There is no mention of passenger numbers.

  I have never come across passenger numbers for stations in Norway, and I am positive they are not published. Only so-called counting points (i.e. the number of passengers traveling on all trains through a limited number of stations) are available. However, the number that I have added is the ridership for the Airport Express Train.

  Thanks. I'm more used to United Kingdom station articles where these figures are based on ticket sales for a given station - but these are not necessarily accurate, for several reasons.Pyrotec (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any information why these accidents with empty trains only started to occur two to three years after the station opened?

  As all three were human errors, I think it was just happenstance. I would happen to guess that safety is top-of-the-head for people when operations start, and then they get more and more lazy—which accumulated results in accidents after a few years. But this is just guesswork by myself, the souces say nothing.

Pyrotec (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial review, and in particular thanks for fixing the map; it was just too complex for me to figure out (I was simply copying from the Norwegian article). Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. Its not as neat as the Norwegian article, so I might have a further try in a few weeks, but it will satisfy GA requirements for now.Pyrotec (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review

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:

   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:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations, I'm awarding GA.Pyrotec (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)