Talk:Forskningsparken station

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Forskningsparken (station)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   • History "At first, Blindern was considered to be the best transfer point, but it was later decided that creating an all-new station would be better." - Better how? Would it "provide more efficient transfers"? If it was "better" I think we need to know why, otherwise it is fine to just simply state it was decided to be built there instead.
   • History "There were complaints from local residents that the increased traffic on the line was causing too much noise, and neighbors demanded that noise shields be built." - Were the noise shields ever built?

   This one is still an issue, but I'm willing to let it slide due to a lack of information. I would suggest further research and adding this info at some point in the future. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Facilities "Both stations are open, but have sheds in each direction. They were drawn by Arkitektskap." - Who is Arkitektskap? Also, these two sentences could be combined for better readability.

   B. MoS compliance:

   • Intro The introduction is a little weak. The article itself is not that big, but there should be some mention of interesting or notable points from the history, facilities, and service sections. You don't need to add too much, just a few more sentences will suffice. Please see WP:LEAD for more info.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   • References The link to ref number 15 is broken.

   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:

   Article placed on hold until issues can be addressed. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry for the late reply—I've been away on a short holiday. I have adressed all the issues except the noise shields. Despite looking for it, I could not find any news on either construction or non-constructions. I would presume it was built, but I cannot be 100% sure. I am not quite sure how to formulate this without leaving the reader with a question, and not knowing the answer myself. I still find it important to include since the matter was the main objection to building the station. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well-done. Article passed. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Forskningsparken (station). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ruter.no/Miljo-og-kultur/Stasjoner/T-banestasjonene-i-vest/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326165847/http://ruter.no/Global/PDF_filer/linjekart/Trikken2007-12webOS.pdf to http://ruter.no/Global/PDF_filer/linjekart/Trikken2007-12webOS.pdf

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) 20:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Forskningsparken (station). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724185840/http://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/1997/uniforum13-97/01.htm to http://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/1997/uniforum13-97/01.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rikshospitalet.no/ikbViewer/page/no/pages/klinikkene/lokasjon/informasjon/detaljer?p_doc_id=37928&p_prev_id=24820
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510034538/http://www.arkitektskap.no/samferdsel.html to http://www.arkitektskap.no/samferdsel.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5opb4gEps?url=http://www.trafikanten.no/trafikkinfo/tabeller/os/oslo-trikk.pdf to http://www.trafikanten.no/trafikkinfo/tabeller/os/oslo-trikk.pdf

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) 05:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)