Talk:Bergen Line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBergen Line was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 2, 2008Good article nomineeListed
June 5, 2022Good article reassessmentKept
March 11, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Name[edit]

Norwegian Railways call it the Bergen Railway on their own website! It's famous as the Bergen Railway. Books have been published on the subject calling it the Bergen Railway! So where's the precedent for calling it the Bergen Line? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can agree that the best solution is to name all lines in Norway consequently, either as Foobanen, Foo Line, Foo Railroad or Foo Railway. According to WP:UE the English term should be preferred to an native name, if it is widely used—the former solution of Foobanen has been very confusing and created grammatical and editorial confusion as to the use (in particular related to the definitive article, but also related to the translations of the type Gardermobanen Line). The owner of the track, the Norwegian National Rail Administration, does not publish any railway names in English, with the exception of the Oslo Port Line (Norwegian: Havnebanen), indicating that they prefer Line as a naming convention for banen. Other than this I have done extensive searching, in published and online sources, failing to establish a single preferred naming convention—just like you I have found sources calling it both the Bergen Railway, the Bergen Railroad and the Bergen Line. Based on this and other considerations, I found it most accurate to use the Line. First, the best translation of bane is line, and not railway, since bane indicated a trajectory or way, rather than a railway (which is jernbane). This is most notable in Sweden, where they called independent railways for Foo Järnväg, while lines of the main system were often referred to as Foobanan, indicating a differentiation between a railway (an independent system) and a line (part of a system). Second, several railway lines in Norway are called Foolinje, where linje is a direct translation of line. It is of utmost importance to remain consistent in naming of all lines, especially since the Rail Administration has started renaming from Foolinjen to Foobanen. As for the NSB web site, note that this only an operator—official naming would have to be issued by the Rail Administration. And as the caution reader will note, on the same page the term Østfold Railway, Dovrebanen line and Rauma Line are used—it is staggering how inconsistent NSB is in their naming of the various lines on their web site, and can hardly be considered as an official naming policy. If you read the official NSB entry on the Bergen Line, they actually in the same article refer to the line as both the Bergen Railway and the Bergen Line. Based on this I find it best to use the term Line consequently in the naming of railway lines in Norway. Arsenikk (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand all this. The problem is that the Bergen Railway is quite famous, and all references I have previously seen in English call it the Bergen Railway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what about the "Bergen-Oslo Line" or the "Oslo-Bergen Line"? As the article is up for GAR we don't really need an edit war.Pyrotec (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's even worse. I'm not going to edit war on the subject. I just think the point needs to be made that Wikipedia guidelines state "use common name" and as far as I've always been aware the common English name for this line is the Bergen Railway. This trumps consistency on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My prefrence would also be "Bergen Railway" as the local name is "Bergenbanen", but if you look at Category:Railway lines in Norway they are consistently known as "Lines". 09:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
So consistency (presumably imposed by editors) is more important than WP:COMMONNAME? News to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its common name is Bergensbanen.Pyrotec (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline refers to common name in English! Although personally I would be far happier if the article was entitled Bergensbanen, as it used to be. I think you can take the translating everything into English thing too far. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bergen Line seems fine to me. We are supposed to use English names for things here, after all. Manxruler (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Bergen Railway" not English then? As to the "use English" rule, that's fine if the thing in question has a common English name. It's not clear that this one does, as it can be translated in two different ways, both of which are used on their website by the organisation which operates it. There do seem to be many editors around (bizarrely, usually ones whose native language isn't English!) who insist on translating everything into English, even if it usually appears in its native language even in English-language publications. That's taking things too far, which was my point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review[edit]

The article appears to be of the right standard to gain GA. Some initial comments:

  • There appears to be some uncertainty over the name of the railway director. He is named as Carl Abraham Phil, but this is a link to Carl Abraham Pihl.
  • Its not entirely clear (except from the Infobox) what the gauge is; but about halfway through the article standard gauge is mentioned.
  • The relationship between the Bergen Line and the Voss Line is not all that clear. It seems that the Bergen Line includes the Voss Line (although the route has been shortened by the construction of a tunnel) and that the Voss Line was originally built as a narrow gauge route.
  • In the 'Political Process subsection, "ministry" is mentioned without any clarification of which ministry is meant.

I will continue the review and may come back to these points later.Pyrotec (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

The article has the making of a GA, but the following points need addressing:

  • There appears to be some uncertainty over the name of the railway director. He is named as Carl Abraham Phil, but this "article" is only a link to Carl Abraham Pihl. The name "Phil" appears at various places in the article.
  • The relationship between the Bergen Line and the Voss Line is not all that clear. It seems that the Bergen Line includes the Voss Line (although the route has been shortened by the construction of a tunnel) and that the Voss Line was originally built as a narrow gauge route. This needs to be clarified in the body of the article and summarised in the WP:Lead.
  • In the 'Political Process subsection, "ministry" is mentioned without any clarification of which ministry is meant.Pyrotec (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the copyedit :) The mess with Pihl is sorted out (there at one point existed two articles on Wikipedia, one under each name for the same guy, and I was at one point utterly confused about the matter, but it has since been established beyond doubt as to the German spelling). I believe I have clarified the Voss Line and the gauge—do not hesitate to notify me if you feel the rewriting is insufficient. Concerning the ministry, see the post at User:Punkmorten#Transport and Communications equated with Labour for the complexity of the issue, since at the time the Ministry of Labour was responsible for the transport and communications. This is now linked and extended. Arsenikk (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Internet searches indicated that Pihl was the correct spelling and that he had a link with the Stephenson's, but nothing citable. I have tracked down a printed source but I don't yet have it. 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

GAR[edit]

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:
    A good number of references
    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:
    A Good Article; also a possible candidate for FAC, but would need more in-line citations.


Congratulations, I'm awarding this article GA.Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Arsenikk (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English-language book[edit]

There is an book in Norwenglish on the Bergen Line by Bjørn Holøs which is available at nb.no. I don't know if it's anything really worth citing though (very short, and reads more or less like a tourist brochure). --Eisfbnore talk 13:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: I see it refers to this line as the “Bergen Railway”, but I don't know if that's anything to worry about, since the english translations by NJK (and LTF) tend to be a bit clumsy … Eisfbnore talk 13:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bergen 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 15:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bergen 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bergen 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bergen 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) 10:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bergen 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) 14:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Length of line?[edit]

The current version of the "Bergen Line" page states a length of 371 km in the first paragraph and in the infobox. The complete rail distance between Oslo and Bergen is longer, with the exact length depending on the routing east of Hønefoss. On https://orv.banenor.no/sjn/doku.php?id=strekningsbeskrivelse:strekningsoversikt:bergensbanen Bane NOR lists a distance of 471,25 km between Bergen and Oslo via Roa, with 381,68 km for the part between Hønefoss and Bergen. If going via Drammen (as passenger trains currently do), the distance between Oslo and Bergen is 34,64 km longer; 505,89 km in total.

Hence I wonder what the 371 km are actually refering to. They do not match the Hønefoss to Bergen part (which, could be argued, is the Bergen line proper) nor any other relevant part, nor - obviously - the complete distance from Bergen to Oslo. Arsenikk:, you seem to have added the length (as 372 km, later changed to 371) with this edit. Do you, or anyone, object to a change to one of the values outlined above? GeorgR (de) (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've only just noticed this. As per your question, the relevant length is Bergen to Hønefoss. I may look at that figure while I'm working on the article. Interestingly, the route diagramme gives 471 km and the article 371 km. Pyrotec (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen Line Good Article Reassessment[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Bergen Line/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

 

Starts GA Reassessment. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 

 

Instructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

Observations[edit]

Document statistics:

  • HTML document size: 827 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 41 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 46 kB
  • Wiki text: 49 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 24 kB (4148 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 5046 B
  • Page Created 20:26, 21 August 2004
  • Page has 278 edits by 165 editors
  • Page has 42 page watchers, some of whom edit regularly
  • Page views in the past 30 days = 3,908
  • 90 Day page views = 10,073 with a daily average of 111 views
  • Internet Archive Bot has been on the page 9 times
  • ClueBot NT has not been here, suggesting no vandalism
  • Majority of edits to this page occurred in 2008, only one edit for 2022 at time of starting GA Reassessment
  • Page tagged {{update}} by DannyS712 in November 2018
  • Page has 76 edits since the update tag ...

Sections[edit]

The Voss Line

Political processes

  • This is a good narrative about the history behind the construction of the line. References are same (above), error, cannot be accessed.
    • The references are books, I think your google-books-Australia searches are at fault. What does the word "access" mean - you can't find a digitised version of the book, you can find the isbn, or you can find the cited book(s)? This needs to be clarifed. Pyrotec (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment noted

Construction

  • Provides a good history of construction, with associated photo. Gubberud references (see above) cannot be accessed.
    • Gubberud is clearly a book reference and the book exists see https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9788290286052/ . In choosing to sign up to do this GA reassesment, you should first accertain whether the resourses are availabe to hand to review the article. Pyrotec (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment noted

Construction of the Bergen Line

  • Well constructed history of the line including tunnels and gauge conversion, and delays to opening.

World War Two

  • This section lacks citations - an accident cited with deaths resulting and cause attributed
    • I agree, this section was in the article with a different title - "steaming up". At the time I awarded the article GA Status in October 2008, I did not regard that section as contentious. This was wartime with the country under German military occupation: there was unlikely to be a railway accident investigation, but anyone suspected of sabotage would have been rounded up and shot as a saboter.Pyrotec (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment noted
    • I have added three citations: firstly, a railway blog - which is generally not regarded as a reliable source, but this article appears to be comprehensive, well-researched with contemporary photographs, a diagram and it adds to the article; secondly, a contempory Norwegian News Letter from February 1944 and their interest is only the number of Norwegians who died; and thirdly, a book that I own, which has a 10-digit ISBN. I doubt there will be any German Military accident investigation report. Pyrotec (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • additions noted

Electrification

  • Narrative of electrification first delayed by war, funding and then use of diesel-electric stock. Good account of allocation of new electric motive power and rolling stock on this line.
  • Good photos of the snow derailment by the lightweight EMU's.

Ulriken Tunnel

  • The text on the Ulriken tunnel is more extensive on this page than on the main page for the tunnel.
    • Thanks for that. This article is a GA article (by my assessment in 2008); the Ulirken tunnel article is either a stub or start article, based on various wiki-project ratings. Pyrotec (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • noted
  • Bergen_Commuter_Rail article gives information about double track expansion of this tunnel and proposed opening in 2024.
    • Thanks for that. It has a citation that would be helpful if I could read Norwegian; so I researched it myself.Pyrotec (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • noted

Finse Tunnel

  • Succinct coverage of the need for - and creation of this tunnel. Main article is extensive.

Operation

  • The article does not state what safeworking is in operation on this line.
    • This article is a GA about a main-line railway line in Norway, about 90% of the railway lines in Norway are single track and about 10% are double track. So this line is mostly single track which is the default mode of working for Norway. I can't recall reviewing any main-line railway article that go into safeworking. There is very little on wikipedia - see . West Coast Main Line which claims in the article to be "one of the busiest mixed-traffic railway routes in Europe" does not mention safeworking - Note it is not a GA, it failed back in 2007 - corrective action was not completed during the hold period (I did work on that one). I would suggest that it is not needed for GA, I'm tempted to go further: see (Category:FA-Class rail transport articles) can you find me an FA main-line railway article in that category that covers safeworking. Pyrotec (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comments noted. The reviewer is permitted to suggest improvements to the article

Commuter Rail

  • This section refers to NSB running operations. It needs updating to reflect the new operator, Vy.
    • Yes, but it's a bit more complicated than that: "NSB" was the contraction of Norwegian State Railways (1883–1996); the brand "NSB" was also used by train-operator Vygruppen from December 1996 until 24 April 2019, when "Vygruppen" was rebranded "Yv". So it appears to be valid to use "NSB" for train operations from the start of this line in about 1883 upto 24 April 2019, but we need to identify which "NSB" is being referred to. We should also distingwish between Vygruppen and Vy. Pyrotec (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment noted

Closing

  • This text:On 16 June 2011, a welding accident caused a fire at Hallingskeid Station, causing the complete destruction of the platform. This caused a seven-day closure of the line. is not validated by the content of Reference 60.
    • I agree, the article cited as the reference is about a fire in snow shelter at Hallingskeid, that destroyed a train and the fibre optics for the signaling system and closed the line. There is no mention of welding having caused the fire and no information on how long the line was closed. I will look for another, or more references. Pyrotec (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment noted
    • I have re-written this sections. What is in the article about the fire and the line closure matches, in my view, what is verifiable from the sources provided.Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment noted

Upgrades

  • This section should reference the duplication of the Ulriken Tunnel; see the Bergen_Commuter_Rail article.
    • I have started work on this. The new tunnel is open and has been in use for just over one year, but the old tunnel is shutdown for upgrading and will not open until sometime 2024: this is also given on the page cited above. So it appears that Ultriken is still in use as a single tunnel, albeit with a new signalling system and "half" of a new / rebuilt railway station at one end. Pyrotec (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC) My Norwegian is not adequate to read the reference in Bergen_Commuter_Rail so Bergen Line already has some English-language references of this and I hope to find more.Pyrotec (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • improvements to the article noted
    • I added a new section after History called Infrastructure upgrades and moved all the new post-WW II tunnels into that. So, the Ulriken Tunnel material that was in Upgrades has been expanded is now the Infrastructure upgrades section. Pyrotec (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subject to any minor copyedits that I might make, or that you require, I beleive this "problem" has been addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment noted

Stations

  • The map in this section is superfluous to needs; there is a map in the Infobox. This map can be removed.

Images

  • 36 images in this article; 15 article related images and 21 images of stations on the route.
  • Fair use claims and Creative Commons licences noted for all images.

External links

  • External link #2 needs to be updated to https://www.vy.no/en
    • I added the new website given above. Thanks. I've also added a new sub-section, Archived versions of External Links pages, and moved the relevant archived-versions of the pages into this new sub-section. Pyrotec (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment noted
  • External link Jodic.com is a permanent dead link

Observations

  • WP:BEFORE (web) search returns timetable and tickets for journeys on the Bergen line. The line is not closed.
  • WP:BEFORE (news) shows news articles as recent as 6 days ago about travel on the Bergen Line. Line is definitely not closed.
    • I don't see what relevance WP:BEFORE has here, it is both a section in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and a short-cut to that section. This is a GA Reassessment, not an assessment as to whether this article should be deleated. Pyrotec (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I renamed this subsection "A call for more investment in railway". Having used google translate to read the article - its clearly a request for more investment money written back in 2002, which appears in a Section Future propositions. I'm surprised the GA reassessment did not pick that up; well, I did not pick it up back in 2008, but it was fairly recent news then. Pyrotec (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comments noted

Overall[edit]

1. This page has had an update tag since 2018.

  • So some editor stuck an update tag on the article in 2018 and left it at that - no attempt was made to include the reason(s) why an article needs updating. In fact, looking at the page log an editor who was not logged-in (that was the only edit on wikipedia from the IP address) added a helpful comment [Serious update needed for stations and tunnels] and ten seconds later that was reverted by a logged-in editor who replaced it with an empty update tag. It would have been far more helpful if the "Serious update needed for stations and tunnels" comment had been moved into the update tag. Pyrotec (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now removed it, because I because I have worked on the doubling of the Ulricken tunnel and that was the only tunnel raised in this reassessment. I have added Arna station and there is a separate action on Halliskreid station. That update tag did not provide any guidance on what the editor thought needed to be added. Pyrotec (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comments and removal of maintenance tag noted

2. References could do with thorough checking and updating.


3. There are references that cannot be accessed. These mainly refer to the early history and construction of the line;

4. There is an assertion about a fire at a platform closing the line for one week. This is not supported by the reference given.

    • It is not an assertion, it's a fact. In fact, there is an wikipedia GA article which was cited in that paragraph which has full details - it looks the hyperlinked article to the article on the station was not checked during this GA reassessment. I know that wikipedia articles can be used as citations for other wikipedia articles, but clearly the word "assertion" is inappropriate, it was merely inadequate referencing. Pyrotec (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment noted

5. No explanation of safeworking on this route is given. Single line, double track, passing loops

  • I'm not aware of any mainline railway articles at GA and FA level that discuss safeworking. Can you provide one that you think could be used as guide for updating this article? Safeworking goes to Signalling block system, the Norwegian page is Norwegian railway signaling. Most of this line is single-line, but some will be double-line. There are now three Passing loop hyperlinks in the article. One is to be found in the Freight section: these operators want more five more passing loops and they want the length increased from 400 to 700 metres; Finse tunnel does have a loop of at least that length and that is mentioned specifically; the snow tunnel at Hallingskried has a loop of unknown length. Norway is part of Europe and there are European standards, but the Bergen line according to wikipedia does not meet those standards, but these are highly technical articles that in my oppinion do not contribute to the understanding of this article. I'm beginning to think that signaling is outside the requirements for GA. Pyrotec (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comments noted. As observed earlier, the reviewer is permitted to suggest improvements to the article

6. Progress on the Ringerike Line is relevant to this article.

    • Again progress on the Ringerike Line is not relevant, as that line does not exist. The Bergen Line article has been updated by another editor to include more details in the Future propositions section. A plan was adopted by the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization on March 27, 2020. The Ringerike Line project was currently scheduled to be started in 2024, and finished around 2030. It's construction, which involves both work on the railway and on motorways was first raised in 1894 and again in 2000. Pyrotec (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment noted

7. Placement of the map is inelegant and waste of space as the map is already in the Infobox

8. Listing of the Stations might be improved by converting this section into a gallery or a multi-column table.

9. The route has a new operator. This is not noted in this article.

10. The most strategic tunnel on this route is being double-tracked.

    • "Being" is the relevant word here. The new single-bore tunnel is in use, but the old tunnel is out of use and is being upgraded and interconnected, so the combined tunnel is not yet double tracked, other than the portal at Arna station. The article has been updated, but it still needs a bit more in the way of referencing. Pyrotec (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment noted

11. The article asserts this line is closed. It is not, as shown in the WP:BEFORE searches

    • Where does it say the line is closed. The article talks about 2 hourly services, it clearly about an operational railway not one that is closed? Pyrotec (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore WP:BEFORE is a section in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, this is a GA Reassement, that should be carried out against [[1]]. Why is the guidance given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion being used here? Pyrotec (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment noted. As stated below, the reviewer is free to take up any tool to recommend improvements to an article.

12. There can be a new section about the reopening of the line and service frequency, and tourist usage. All governments keep statistics on tourists.

    • The line did not close, so there is not need to write about its reopening. You appear to have miss-read, either (1) what was a request for more investment in 2002 and a counter-request in 2004 for more money to convert the railway into a road, or (2) the fire at Hallingskeid closing a part of the line for about a week in 2011.Pyrotec (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment noted
    • This article is a GA not a FA and neither is wikipedia intended to be a railway timetable. However, one of the justifications for both doubling the Ulriken tunnel (which is scheduled to be completed next year) and doubling the line between Ulriken and Bergen, (which has not started) and that effect might change as a result of High-speed rail; is that it doubles the traffick-capacity between Bergen and Ulriken; and those figures are in a valid reference. I don't think that citation indicates what effect doubling the tunnel but not the track will give on traffick Pyrotec (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment noted

13. External links need updating.

Notifying Editors:

  • Page Creator ChrisO~enwiki (has not contributed to en~wiki since 2010)
  • Editor Arsenikk notified;
  • Editor Sjakkalle notified;
  • Editor Pyrotec notified;
  • Editor WikiProject Trains notified;
  • Editor WikiProject Norway notified;
  • A total of three involved editors and two WikiProjects were notified.

 On hold for one week. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whiteguru, I did the origial GA assessment back in 2008 so I have probably not looked at the article since then. I can work on the article but much of the work will not be completed before the week beginning the 6th June.
1. However, I'm beginning to have some doubts about the reassessment in respect of how book references are treated. Most of those books are old and pre-2007 so they have 10-digit book codes, not the modern 13-digit ISBN book codes. You appear to be doing this review without access to the books (I don't claim to have them either) but you don't appear to be able to find one of them on google books Australia - there was a 404 error on google books, so what: your search may be faulty, google books Australia may be at fault. Futhermore, the GA requirement is for statements to be verifyable - so its just a case of verifying them against the relevant books - which are citied. It's not clear from reassesment what the word "access" means, so that aught to be clarified in the reassessment - are you claiming there are no digitised copies on google books - this is not a GA requirement - or google books can't find what is in your search string - perhaps that is the cause of the problem. Pyrotec (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. Short-cut WP:BEFORE goes to Nominating article(s) for deletion and the relevant paragraph is:

Before nominating: checks and alternatives 

  "WP:BEFORE" redirects here. For the essay on reading discussions before commenting, see Wikipedia:Read before commenting. For the essay on steps to take before commenting in a deletion discussion, see Wikipedia:Before commenting in a deletion discussion.

Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:

  • A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines
  • B. Carry out these checks
  • C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
  • D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability

Why is WP:Before being used in a GA Reassessment. Pyrotec (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 

 

  • In GA Reassessments, reviewers are encouraged to take any steps necessary to improve an article. Access to WP:BEFORE comes with New Page Patrol, which this editor participates. As a reviewer, any tool may be taken up to improve or suggest improvements to an article. In this instance, WP:BEFORE was used to search out additional references and to allay other matters of concern. Whatever the customary usage of WP:BEFORE is, use is not prohibited in other applications. In Wikipedia, the principal rule is ignore all rules. User Pyrotec is advised that further disputation of this matter may be taken up at ANI. Not here. Why? Because this is the place for reassessment of the rating given to an article. Positive comments and improvements are welcome. Criticism and negative commentary do not belong in reassessment. The final decision rests with the editor doing the reassessment. That User Pyrotec conducted the original GA assessment is not a matter under review or consideration.
  • Any further commentary on WP:BEFORE in this reassessment will be deleted; this is a GA Reassessment, not the place for disputation. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 

 

  • Article status:

From the time of placement of GA Reassessment, some 194 edits have been made to this article. New sections have been added, and content has been updated to accurately reflect the state of affairs on this railway line. User Pyrotec has done yeoman work, and indicates that further improvements may be ongoing.

Good Article Criteria[edit]

  1. The article should be clearly written, in good prose, with correct spelling and grammar.
  2. The article should be factually accurate according to reliable sources
  3. The article should broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions.
  4. The article should be stable, with no ongoing edit wars.
  5. The article should comply with image use policy.
  6. The article is free of obvious copyright violations.

 

 

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment[edit]

Bergen Line[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 promotion contains significant uncited material, including whole subsections, meaning that it does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bergen_Line&oldid=1215757044"