Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of railway electrification in Norway/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:26, 19 May 2010 [1].

Timeline of railway electrification in Norway[edit]

Timeline of railway electrification in Norway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list presents a sortable timeline of the electrification of railways in Norway. Not only is this the first of its type to be FLCed, but so far the only of its type to be created. Enjoy! Arsenikk (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (enjoy, I did!)
  • Thamsvan line caption needs a full stop.
  • kilometre or kilometer. Pick one and be consistent.
  • I thought AC was most commonly referred to as "alternating current", not "alternate current".
  • I think selection of AC standard should come after the summary of when the Norway railways became electrified. That's what this list is really about...
  • "All three used different electrification standard than NSB would later install," -> either "a different ... standard" or "different ... standards" and it's usually "different ... from" rather than "different ... than"
  • "canceled" is USEng, kilometre (should you choose it) is BritEng, and thus we'd use "cancelled".
  • "opened with electrifications" this reads a little odd to me. What do you mean? they were electrified before they were opened?
  • Some entries in "section" column have spaced en-dash, some have unspaced en-dash. Why?
    • The MOS says that if one of the disjunctions has spaces, the space dash should be spaced. "Oslo Ø", "Oslo V", "Oslo S" and "Trondheim S" all force an unspaced endash. Arsenikk (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • System sorts okay besides the 750V entry which probably should sort lower than 10kV...
  • Ref -> Ref(s)
  • "Dm3]]-hauled ore train on the Ofoten Line" caption needs addressing.
  • Voss station caption needs a full stop.
  • Ref 10, since when did page refs have decimal places?
  • Ref 16, does that ref really have 23290 pages?
  • Two bibliography comments have a letter after the year of publication(?), why?
    • I use two The Norwegian National Rail Administration publications from 2009. To differentiate between them, I use "a" and "b". If you have a better way, I'm more than happy to change it. Arsenikk (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review—I see I should have copyedited it once more. For the record I use American English, so I've change it to that. Arsenikk (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments.

  1. All abbreviation used in the article should be spelled out. Please, do this for NSB.
    Sorry, of course they should; I guess it got left out when I rearranged part of the lead in response to the comments above. Arsenikk (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Further plans have been launched Please, specified the date.
    The first plans were launched in the 1940s, and have surfaced every five to ten years since. As it is not in the current National Transport Plan, specifying any date would be pure speculation. The plans were just as much "around the corner" when Aspenberg wrote in 2001 as they are today. However, there is political consensus that if more electrification is done, then those two lines should be first. I can find sources from ministers and parliamentarians promising money shortly from 2010 and from 1946, so adding the latest news flash on the issue isn't going to help much. Arsenikk (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. NSB and private railways were pioneers in electrifying mainline railways Does this mean that they were pioneers in the country or world?
    Norway was, due to its abundance of hydroelectricity, pioneers world-wide. Arsenikk (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think the information in this list should be put in context of the electrification in the world. When did it begin? What was the place of Norway in this process?
    A good idea. I will have to go to the library to look up some sources for this, and I'll specify the point from point 3 accurately as well with them. Give me a day or two to fix this, as I'll need to go to the public library. Arsenikk (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik_Zero 12:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Arsenikk (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All your points should now be resolved. I've added some more information about the general development of electric railways. As this is an extremely complicated matter, with competing technology and currents, it is difficult to summarize without going very off topic. As it stands now, I feel it diverts the readers attention from the topic at hand; should the reader want more information, they can always look at railway electrification system. Arsenikk (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the private lines that preceded NBS's electrification chose different standards. This sentence is in the wrong place. Ruslik_Zero 16:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I moved the "new" stuff to the end. Although it breaks the chronology, it allows the first two paragraphs of the lead to focus on the matter at hand, and then let a "softer" last paragraph put it into perspective. This was one of TRM's comments, which lead to a previous re-arrangement of content. Arsenikk (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now looks good. Ruslik_Zero 16:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Prose is quite good, and the list looks nice. I didn't find anything to gripe about :) I made a tweak on the railways map to make it a little easier to understand quickly. Jujutacular T · C 22:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supoprt interesting article. I you listed the images of trains in chronological order (from oldest to newest type of train) I'd be even happier. Sandman888 (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. I've kept the two top to create a contrast, but arranged the images beside the table chronologically by rolling stock.

Basically looks good, but a couple of questions/comments:

  • Does the sentence starting with: "In 2008, electric traction accounted for 90%...", refer to Norway or the world?
  • I was a bit surprised to read about the first electric railways in the last paragraph of the intro. Did you consider moving that paragraph up to the top?
    • At first some of the meta-info like current was at the top, but then moved after request from TRM. Then Ruslik0 asked me to add some context history, but I found it hard to start the lead off with six sentences that are not deal with in the list. There is no optimal solution for this at all, as there is a trade-off between relevance and chronology. Arsenikk (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the timeline section: "... but were this was not taken into use immediately.", possibly "were->where"?
  • "The fifth column shows the electrical system, including current, frequency and whether it is alternate current (AC) or direct current (DC).": It is the sixth (not fifth) column if I am not mistaken. Also, it includes the voltage (not current). You might want to do without the AC/DC by saying that: "...it includes the frequency in case of AC and no frequency in case of DC."
    • Done. Arsenikk (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought about removing the "AC/DC" in the table, but maybe it is better to leave it in to make it more obvious. bamse (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "planned as electric" lines, does the date in the table refer to the opening of the line with non-electric trains or is it the date of the first electric service. Could you add the other date as a footnote?
  • I have a general question regarding electrification and sections. Surely a section was not electrified everywhere at once. I imagine that they rather start at some point and move along the line electrifying it (please correct me if I am wrong). What does the date in the table mark? The first run of a (test)-train or the first regular electric service? bamse (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list description says: "...the date when the electrification was taken into use on each section." I imagine that NSB would physically build the electrification system along a line, and on the given date that section was taken into use electrified, with the steam/diesel locomotives being moved to a base further up the line and the electric locomotives starting hauling all trains from that date. I've added "regular use" to clarify a bit. Arsenikk (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. This question was just for my own understanding anyway. bamse (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the list. Arsenikk (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing all comments. I noticed that in the table the letters "Å" and "Ø" sort like "A" and "O" respectively while at least in Swedish (don't know about Norwegian) they are close to the end of the alphabet. I don't know if there is a wikipedia consensus on how to deal with such cases (to sort like in the local language or otherwise) but you might wish to change order. In any case the article looks like a featured list to me, and therefore

support. bamse (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Timeline_of_railway_electrification_in_Norway/archive1&oldid=1084311961"