Talk:Taketoyo Line/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. ZKang123 (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: AlphaBetaGamma (talk · contribs) 12:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I have some major concerns for the article. Firstly, the lead of this article doesn't seem to cover adequately about the line subject, given also much of the history and technical details is omitted (perhaps more expansion here is needed). Also there seem to be a couple of references to railfan pages (in Japanese), like refs 6 and 11 bring me to such. @AlphaBetaGamma: are you able to help look over the references for me to confirm?

The history section is also rather brief, though that's fine if not much can be uncovered, but the prose and grammar aren't in great shape there. What's also lacking a couple of other details like signalling and accessibility, and citations needed for the technical data. I also believe the rolling stock section should be rewritten in prose (and remove the gallery too). In all, I don't believe this article doesn't seem to be in the right shape to be nominated for GA, and it seems to be written from a railfan perspective given the priority focus on the rolling stock.

I recommend looking at other railway line articles, like Frankston line or North East MRT line, to note the usual convention for writing railway line articles.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into this problem, but it's 11PM for me right now. Do you mind if I do sort out the issues tomorrow? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright with me too, given it's also late at night here as well haha.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations:

The history section being short was inevitable, considering section on the jawiki version is also short. I did look around for it, but given the fact the line was just neglected by JR central and JNR after being constructed the history is a bit narrow.
- I did cut off a lot of "connection plans to airport" area because I felt like the article would derail into something else.
I'll take a look on replacements on the mentioned sources while rechecking some. When there was a GANR for Shibayama Railway there was a ton of a issues with sources added by other editors which created "find a mole whack a mole" situation.
For grammar - I'll repair it when I wake up.
I'll expand the lead to be like Frankston line later on.
You pointed out the technical details were omitted, but I was hesitant to add much as I assumed other articles already covered railway signaling and accessibility in Japan.

ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 15:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized what you meant by railfan perspective. I don't remember the rolling stock section being so high in the article... What the hell? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I haven't exactly failed this yet is because I'm considering it could be repairable though not without some significant work. It's also understandable if the history is rather brief too. One thing about the lead though that it claims to have the oldest railway building, but of what? Similar to the claim about the pedestrian bridge. Also, it's fine to rehash information about the railway signaling and accessibility. I think the technical info at the start of the page would also need citations and could be similarly incorporated under an "infrastructure" section. If you think this article is salvageable, then I will work on giving further improvement suggestions.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately today is a holiday, so I have several things to do in the afternoon. Even on holidays I am a bit busy... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I need some time to repair all this and that, so I'll Withdraw the nomination. Thanks for reviewing. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Really, a lot of work is needed to be done, and all the needed fixes would be beyond the scope of GAN. I suggest also trying to find academic sources on the line as well. I believe there are plenty of books on Japanese railways for reference.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:11, 16 July 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.