Talk:Japan National Route 119/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 12:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. This looks like a big one - sorry you've been waiting a while! Ganesha811 (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mccunicano, this passes GA review! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on the article. I'll do the needful now. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No prose issues - pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	A translated title for Source 9 (from Wikisource) would be great to have. Added. Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Google Maps, in my view, is not a particularly reliable source. I see that WP:RSP shows several prior discussions which bring up the same issues I have. While I think the information in the article is probably fine, if possible, please find other sources for the facts pulled from Google Maps here. Issue discussed. Guinness is a similarly middling source - I think the sentence should be rephrased to say that this portion of the route holds the Guinness world record for world's longest tree-lined avenue, without implying in Wikipedia's voice that such a claim is correct. Not yet addressed. Issues addressed. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Where does the list of major intersections come from? What constitutes "major"? Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues found by Earwig or manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No other significant areas of the topic found. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no issues with overdetail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no neutrality issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	For File:Utsunomiya north road.jpg, please make sure that the file information is given in the proper format, not just in the 'Summary' on Wikimedia. Other image looks good. Fixed. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, no issues here.
	7. Overall assessment.	Hello, Ganesha811. Thanks for taking the time to start this review. I'll do my best to respond to your requests and queries in a reasonable manner of time, though I'm a bit busy offline so I may be a bit slow. Cheers, ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️ 18:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for letting me know, I'll complete my review and then ping you. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hey Ganesha811, MOS:RJL should clarify why I included what I did in the junction list. As for Google Maps, I had a similar query arise with another article review, but it was deemed suitable as a reference for how I used it there. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️ 17:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the link, that looks good for the junctions then. I'm still not personally thrilled about Google Maps, but happy to follow precedent and accept it. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Mccunicano - I'm done with my review, just a few issues to clear up above and then we should be all set. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, I'll get to working on the article some more over the next couple of days. I added an alt caption to the image mentioned above, is there something else I should do in regards to it? ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️ 18:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Yes - if you click through to this page on Commons, you can see that the Summary isn't well-put together or complete - compare to the other image in the article. Anything you can do to improve that would be appreciated. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Okay, I've gone through and made some changes to the article and improved the details for that file on Commons (I even added some coordinates). ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️ 15:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]