Talk:Shibuya Route/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 03:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I plan to review this article over the coming week. This looks like a pretty short and sweet article, and I think it definitely looks interesting at first glance.

Prose, MOS, coverage, neutrality

Don't see any issues here, but I'll double check later.

Update: Looks fine on this front. Passed

References

According to WP:RSP, Google Maps is not preferred if there are better sources, which I would think there would be for a public expressway. In addition, Google Maps data is partially user-generated and subject to change. If you could find a map from a reliable source, such as an official government map or a publication from Shuto, then that would be very much appreciated.
Should mention that the GDP figures actually come from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and are then integrated into MeasuringWorth. If you can, I would like it if you could link directly to the BEA instead if the figures can be calculated on their site.
Who published 首都高速道路公団20年史 (#8)? Was it Shuto themselves? A third party? Similarly, add the publisher for the 2014 press release (#13).
For refs with URLs, I've noticed that using spaces instead of underscores causes the URL to break. I believe that ref 11 is affected by this.
Just noticed that the publisher for 1Q84 is wikilinked but no other publisher is. Either all publishers should be wikilinked or none should be.
Ref 11 should be in titlecase (Asian Highway Handbook) and the publisher should be renamed to indicate that it is part of the UN.
I noticed that the source said 11.9 instead of 11.7 km and modified the sentence. If there are any calculations for the junction list that you need to redo, please do so.

Copyvio

Well... Earwig has managed to return a 0% on all sources! Of course, that is probably because they are in Japanese for the most part, but I don't see any issues as much of the info is taken from maps or is properly collated from multiple sources. Passed

Pictures

Relevant picture with a free license - looks all good here. I would like to see a picture of a turnout, but I would assume finding freely licensed pictures of one specifically would be pretty hard, and adding another image to an article this size would not be ideal, so I would say the articles passed on this front.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Thanks for beginning the review! I've started fixing the issues outlined above. Best, ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️ 14:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Made some more comments. MSG17 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Distance discrepancy has been addressed as well as the issue with the UN reference. Question, should repeat publishers, such as Metro Expressway Company Ltd., be linked every time? Also, if I were able to get a picture of a turnout myself at some hypothetical future date (I'm in Japan, but pretty far from Tokyo), do you think it would clutter the article? ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️ 00:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to link the publishers each time, just the first (although I personally link each occurrence for convenience's sake). As for the picture, to me it would be awkward because of how short the section is, so I don't think it would be advisable to add an image. Anyway, with all of these changes (I also added the publisher to ref 4), you have satisfactorily addressed my comments and I deem this article ready to be promoted to GA.

Excellent, thanks for the tip and the edit to ref 4. See you over at the review for National Route 58. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️ 02:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's always great working with you, and a real shame to see how long it took for these two articles to get reviewed. I'll get to fully analyzing National Route 58 soon. MSG17 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]