Talk:Taketoyo Line/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: AlphaBetaGamma (talk · contribs) 02:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 08:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Expect initial remarks in 24-48 hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gave the article a glance, along with GA1, and the article seems to have a lot of issues. I'll list some of them right now, and try to help you fix them, as I do not want to quickfail it.

Lead

There should be no refs in lead section Done

Basic Data

Remove section, data is in infobox Done

Infobox
What do the numbers in the route map mean? Explain somewhere, probably 'Operations and Services' Done

Images

Add caption to give context Done

References

I'll check the validity of the references later, but are there no english sources for any of this?

Abolished and Closed Sections

Add sentences, do not just list the sections Done merged into history

Images and References

~~I think it might be better to have the image of the route in infobox, and train image in infrasructure- What do you think?~~ - Feels like that makes it go against what's inside the infobox in more railway line articles, like Frankston line.
- No need to change then
The PDF's don't translate-can you summarise what is in them? - Done
- FN1 - The left side has a part of the history of Taketoyo Line
- FN19 - Study assessing about Taketoyo Line's extension into the airport
Give the publisher name in English too? - ?
User name instead of website wherever possible- (for eg, railway.jr-central.co.jp. should be Central Japan Railway Company instead and so on) - In progress
Have some consistency, as above- some have translations of article titles too, some don't (it will easier with a translated title, but if that seems too much work, just remove currently present article titles for consistency) In progress
I'll do the actual checking of references later, after the above is done

Infrastructure

~~All good, but can this be extended? Like maybe maintenance of the track and stations, any other pieces of construction that relate to the line etc?~~ - I've spent some time in library digging through like 5 or more books when expanding for 2nd review but no. There is a serious lack of coverage for railway infrastructure in Japan unless it's something like major Shinkansen lines and maglev stuff. (Linimo, etc...)

Network and Operations

via Tōkaidō Main Line are available: via Tōkaidō Main Line, stopping only at 2 of the 7 additional stations, are available Done
Can the operators subheading be expanded? - No additional coverage in sources, even in the "Taketoyo Line stories" book I used to beef up history section.
Can stations subheading be expanded - Per above

History

construction of the line.: which line-add - Done
relocated 950 meters closer to Ōbu: what year? - Clarified Done
Due to the line ... the modernization of Taketoyo line.[12][13]: Rephrase, the grammar is atrocious (I tried to fix myself, but couldn't think of a good way); also what year is "at the time"? - Attempted to patch. Done
Did it get expanded to the airport? - I did say no as of 2024 previously, but someone demanded a citation for that so I got pissed off and removed the entire thing. The entire plan is basically indefinitely halted, but no publishers really bother mentioning that.
- I attempted to fix it

References

Using browser's translator to check reliability of sources

Not necessary, but just recommending- you can use sfn instead of entire refs for Taketoyo Line stories - My brain cannot handle learning sfn
- Good thing it's not necessary, first thing I'm changing when the review is done. /hj
www.daido-it.ac.jp. - why is this reliable? - This is a double cite, but if you look in the bottom it cites a different paper, which I strongly confirm as RS.
- Just cite that, instead of this? - Good idea... In progress
Hanto- this reliable? - Which?
- Umm, ref-7? ..Then it is a dupe of the above thing...
  - Sorry, meant this one(current ref 11): Hanto｜半島の魅力を再発見するキュレーションサイト｜ハント
Ref-14(nikkei) is dead - Fuck. In progress
railf.jp- this reliable? - Last reviewer also mentioned this (it shows up orange, despite there being no discussions archived in rs noticeboards), but I'm also personally confident about the website's fact checking stuff.
- Yeah, my query was bcs of the previous reviewer too, look reliable enough to me Done

Overall

Needs copyediting in general(I'll help a bit)

There is more, I'll list everything in the next few days. I honestly do not know if the article will pass (as this does not like just a week or two long task), but I hope to at least help for the next time in case I quick fail, AlphaBetaGamma. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead - I can't figure where the "oldest railway line" claim and others stuff is appropriate to put in.

Oldest railway line in "19th Century", overpass bridge somewhere in "Infrastructure" perhaps.

Basic data - Section removed, can't figure out how to put disclaimers in route map so I broke it.

Fixed it for you

Images - Doing that soon

Abolished and Closed sections - removed. It was using a weird source and history covers this in prose with a better source so eh.

References - If you look up the line on the internet in English you'd find near-zero sources. (Why would foreign websites even care about this line?) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but even the slightest will be good enough (have you used this -[1]), also maybe there are books on it (try searching on Google Scholar). Like Japanese sources are fine too, but English ones are easier to work with and check, so any additional/replacement sources will be good

Replied to you, AlphaBetaGamma. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 source was somewhat relevant to subject on Google Scholar... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add the ridership numbers and related data too, along with any other developments to the stations, especially this century, if there are any, AlphaBetaGamma. Honestly, the article looks in better condition than I thought, might actually pass, so Good Luck! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, there really aren't any developments to the stations that I have not mentioned in the article yet. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed the review, putting on hold, AlphaBetaGamma, check the additional remarks I have made, ping me when you are done/ something is confusing. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thank you. I'm going to take up to a week if I have to check the "Taketoyo Line stories" book again. May take far longer if someone borrowed that book. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 09:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How certain are you that there is nothing to be added, if you are reasonably sure, I'll fine with what the state of the article will be after the in progress changes are done. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's 8pm for me right now, so the next time I'm working on this GAN is tomorrow. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaBetaGamma, replied. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:47, 16 October 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:
· · ·