Looks good, just a couple of comments/suggestions:
"...was operated by Oslo Sporveier,[13] who...", possibly "who"->"which"?!
In my experience copy-editors don't like phrases like "The following lists companies..." and would add a noun such as: "The following table lists companies...". Not sure if it is required by the MOS, but you might give it a thought.
The table is a little bit too wide on my screen. (about too wide by the width of the "Ref" column)
- I've shorted "commenced" to "com". While I don't like it, it is the one column in which the header is eating up horizontal space which the content is not. Otherwise, your screen should be adopting, and there are no hard spaces (although I agree that Kollektivtansportproduksjon is too long a word to help, although the daggering approach may have helped a little).
Arsenikk
(talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I am unsure about the usefulness of combining different types (Infrastructure, Operator,...) of companies in one table. Maybe you could convince me?!
- I've expanded the explanation. The alternative is five separate tables, some with only a single entry, which would look cumbersome. It would also make it impossible to sort the table, for instance to get a chronology by year of commenced operations or year of ceased operations, or by owner. The current scheme allows a reader to quickly see which were private, or in which order the companies started operations, or even which ones were bought by Oslo Sporveier. With separate tables, this would not be possible.
Arsenikk
(talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
- On second thought this makes a lot of sense to me now.
bamse (
talk) 23:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
Do all the lines mentioned in the table still exist?
- Some to, some don't. I've added a note for those which have been closed.
Arsenikk
(talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
Would it be possible to somehow distinguish between metro and tramway lines in the "Lines" column?
- Part of the problem is that while for instance Akersbanerne operated the Røa, Kjelsås, Sognsvann and Østensjø Lines, they were still tramways (or light rails, more accurately). Only after Oslo Sporveier took them over would they be rebuilt to metro lines. I've added a not to those which would later become part of the metro.
Arsenikk
(talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
Refs 3, 5, 14, 15 need a translation of the title.
- I haven't come across any requirements for reference translation in the MOS or other-place, and I don't really see how it helps the reader much, but if you want to, I can always translate them. Done.
Arsenikk
(talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
- It has been requested in some of my FLCs so I thought it was a requirement. Thanks for translating the titles now.
bamse (
talk) 14:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
In the table, could "Kollektivtransportproduksjon" (in "Owner" column) be replaced with Oslo Municipality?
- I was going to protest, but came up with a compromise which would solve the problem.
Arsenikk
(talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
Terms like "Agency", "Integrated" and "Operator" in the type column should be better explained in my opinion or at least directly matched (using parantheses for instance) to the second sentence of the paragraph just above the table.
You use both "Oslo Sporvognsdrift" and "Oslotrikken" in the table which appears to be the same (correct?). To avoid confusion only one of the two terms should be used.
- Fixed. They just recently renamed themselves, causing some confusion (mostly in my head).
Arsenikk
(talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
- There is still "Oslo Sporvognsdrift" in the successor column and "Oslotrikken" in the "company" column.
bamse (
talk) 14:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
bamse (
talk) 14:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
- All fixed. Thanks for the feedback :)
Arsenikk
(talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
|