# Talk:Bærum Tunnel

Why is the EU mentioned in the article when Norway is not a member? --79.240.212.189 (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Norway is a member of the European Economic Area and most EU legislation applies to it.--Grahame (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bærum Tunnel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Rontombontom (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


### Preliminary review
I think the sources currently used in the article, while individually proper and reliable for the purpose used in the article as per WP:V, aren't sufficient for WP:NOTE. Most details are sourced to the Norwegian National Rail Administration, which for notability purposes is a single, non-independent, and often primary source. The Forskning.no article is not independent either. What remain are two reports in the same local paper on the tunneling contract, which seem little more than reproductions of press reports. Based on these sources only, there would be no justification for an article separate from Asker Line. However, I believe this problem can be solved easily by sourcing the Gjønnes Station incident to multiple national (or, if can be found, even international) media reports, for example this.
I've used a lot of sources from the National Rail Administration because they are reliable, accurate and contain detailed information not available in news articles. Most of the information is probably a secondary source, because it is assembled by the information department. I could of course add the Aftenposten ref (as you want me to expand a bit more on the Gjønnes Station incident), but I do not see this as a huge issue, after all it is not an AfD: sources have to exist, not necessarily be linked in the article. Arsenikk (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, and point taken about not necessarily having to be linked. I emphasize that I have nothing against the NNRA sources on WP:V reasons, they are perfect for the details referenced. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The Specifications section feels out of the blue, while the part that establishes the necessary context comes after in the first paragraph of the History section. A possibility would be to move that paragraph to the front as a new Background section, rename History to Construction, and move Specifications there as a sub-section.
I've been "experimenting" of sorts with the order of content in railway line/tunnel/bridge articles, and although I sometimes are not completely consequent, my experience is that specifications or route information should be provided first, so that people without a local geography understanding understand the history better. With adding a bit on the use after opening, I feel it would be more confusing with a background and construction section. Arsenikk (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to prescribe any specific choice of sectioning, but let me be specific: it's just the route information in the first sentences of the History section, that is where the Asker line is defined as capacity booster in the west corridor, which I felt establishes necessary context. I think that for a reader without knowledge of local geography, this is not obvious even with the thumbnail version of the map; and not even clicking on the map will show that the line and thus the tunnel is more than a mere suburban rail project and will conduct intercity traffic to all of Western Norway.
By the way, maybe it's better for the caption of the map to say "the dotted red line at top center is the Bærum Tunnel", given that Lysaker and Sandvika are unreadable on the thumbnail? --Rontombontom (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I now added this myself assuming it was overlooked; but revert if it was your editorial decision to not complicate the caption. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, maybe the establishment of context I am missing is not something for the start of the article body, but for the lede: something like "The tunnel will accelerate intercity traffic between Oslo and west Norway and free up capacity for Oslo's commuter traffic". IMHO such a sentence in the lede is also a sufficient implication that the Asker line is a high-performance line, and the specifics on electification and top speed (also see Supplementary notes) could move to Specifications rather than be dublicated.
Good idea; I've added a slightly modified version of that sentence.. Arsenikk (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, to enhance the first part of the map caption, what about: "Map of the west traffic corridor in the Oslo urban area, with the new Asker line in red and the existing Drammen line in black"? --Rontombontom (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Arsenikk (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there no source on the tunnel face parameters? These (the profile, e.g. circular or not, and the excavated and the finished cross-sectional area) would be the most elemental specifications after single-tube double-track vs. bi-tube.
I would love to include profile information and the like, but the amount of technical information at that level is very limited. I can look once more, but I fear there is nothing around. Arsenikk (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I found this, which gives the excavated cross sectional area. But if there is nothing on the Jernbaneverket pages, then OK this is not broad coverage relevant. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I never though of looking there; cross-section added. Arsenikk (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
In the section on tunneling, could more be said about the tunneling method? Just stating outright that it was drill-and-blast or NATM would be fine; but if the sources say anything about cross section partitioning, that would be worth to add.
I honestly thought I had added that it was a drilling and blasting, but now it is specified. Arsenikk (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear from the sentence on the Gjønnes Station incident what happened. Was earthwork injected into a cavity at high pressure and then burst upwards? Or was earthwork piled up high nearby, with the pressure then generated by gravity? Or was there a mechanism other than one involving pressure at play?
It should be better explained now, please tell me if it is not clear enough. Arsenikk (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
OK by me. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Can the "massive damages" be quantified? Even if not, I suggest a rephrase ("...was seriously damaged..." or something similar).
Removed and tweaked. Arsenikk (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
"...part of the tracks...": based on the photo, I suggest "...part of one track..."
Done. Arsenikk (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Was there any announcement of planned service enhancements for after the opening of the Lysaker-Sandvika section? If so, some details on that could form part of an "Operation" section together with the sentence on the planned start of service.
Yes, I originally though that it was most suitable for the Asker Line article, but I guess some of it could be mentioned here as well. Arsenikk (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. Echoing what I wrote on route information, I thought it's worth to note it here too to indicate the importance of the structure. In the text now added, "Named Route Plan 2012, it was planned introduced in early 2013" is a bit garbled. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I now tried a copyedit myself, but edit it if it doesn't sound good or isn't faithful to the sources. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The decimal-point yet imprecise single coordinate in the infobox would possibly be better be replaced with the coordinates of the tunnel portals. (The top-right corner single coordinate would default to the first.) Although my suggestion is used in a number of articles like Channel Tunnel, the relevant recommendation (linked from the template) seems to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision.
In my experience, there is no good solution, as the tunnel is very long (low precision) but narrow (high precision). Can't say I was any more the wiser after reading the guideline. Arsenikk (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
However, what is the precision for in this occasion? I wrote "decimal-point yet imprecise single coordinate" (in the striked part) because I checked the location currently given: it is a point just north of Høvik station on the Drammen line, so, based on the Asker line map, it must be about a kilometre away from any point of that narrow tunnel. It is well off from the straight-line halfway point between the portals, too. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood you (sorry about that); I've added a new slightly less precise and slightly more on target coord now. Arsenikk (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time for the review. Everything should be seen to now. Arsenikk (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Some nits and bits remain :-)--Rontombontom (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Now everything is done. As the reviewer giving a pass, I am mandated to encourage you to review other GA nominees, but you're doing that already :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


### Supplementary review
I add a layout note (not assessment relevant): now that another reviewer set the reflist to two columns, the columns as they appear on my browser are too narrow due to the commons category box. So I would have nothing against restoring single column refs... or putting the commons link into an External links section with Template:Commons category-inline. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I actually thought that was you who did (without checking the hist) but I noticed the same thing. The general length of the refs is long enough that a single column should be sufficient. Arsenikk (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I somehow left this out from the preliminary assessment: the track details (that is the two-tracked nature, electrification, voltage system and top speed of the railway across the tunnel) are mentioned in the lede only, and without source. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed only now that there was some inconsistency in the lede regarding blasting, saw to it myself. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


### Assessment
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Prose is clear and concise, all unclear points were clarified. First sentence of the lead defines the subject, the rest summarizes important details, and after edit emphasizes the notability of the project. Sections are in the proper order, there are no single-sentence paragraphs, nor bullet point lists. One section is much longer than others but breaking it up may produce sections too short. Didn't notice any misuse of words to watch apart from "massive" which was replaced. MOS on fiction, lists irrelevant to the subject.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
After addition of sources on track, technical details are fully referenced to sources that should know it best, more RS added for operational details and notable construction history event.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
All aspects of design, construction, operation, problems covered, importance outlined.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 
Photos are own work, map's free use is explained, map and second photo are right on subject and eye-catching, first photo informative despite lens reflection, illustrations evenly distributed.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: