Talk:Toyota Auto Body

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Toyota Auto Body/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Truflip99 (talk · contribs) 18:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Urbanoc: I think this nomination is premature and am leaning towards an immediate fail due to a serious lack of coverage of the company's plants (which is what this article should really be about). Any comments? --truflip99 (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Only that I completely disagree with your assessment. But my position isn't really relevant, and I'm not interested in getting a second opinion. You are the reviewer, so I think you must indeed fail it if you think the coverage isn't broad enough. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Urbanoc: Your position is relevant, you are the nominator. I am willing to wait/help to get it up to speed only if you are too. So why do you disagree? --truflip99 (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Truflip99:. Thanks for your comments and sorry for the late response, I was busy in real life.

My disagreement comes from the fact the plants by themselves don't seem really notable, they, for the most part, are run-of-the-mill Toyota plants. Most of the coverage I saw on them was as mere examples of the Toyota's production system, there's little info. And most of the info is focused on TAB as a whole. I could expand a little on the plants using primary sources, giving covered area, exact address (probably using a table), but I don't see how it can help (tell me if you think that's an improvement). I can also expand on the international operations using primary and secondary sources. But that's it.

Having said that above, you may well be right, and wider coverage of the plants is needed. In that case, I'd say this is one of these articles that will never became a GA, as there isn't (and probably never will be) enough sourcing to fix that deficiency. As you have a far greater experience in GAN nominations than I do, I think you're well equiped to decide that, even if I disagree. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Urbanoc: Example: Yosihara plant. Broad and general information such as what is found here will suffice. You don't have to dive deep into the plant's details (as that would warrant its own article). Also consider translating and adding what's been included in the Japanese wiki article. --truflip99 (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Truflip99:, I added a table with info on the company's plants, do you think it's OK or pure prose is better?

I was reading through the J-Wiki article and there's not much I couldn't take from primary sources. In fact, most of the content there seems a slightly modified version of corporate info. The article goes in more detail on the sports section, but it doesn't give sources and has a "dirty laundry" section that doesn't seem relevant enough. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(I'm gonna stop pinging you now) Prose is better. I would type up the following info per factory: general location (not address), total area, # of employees, what they produce. There's also a ton of information on Toyota Auto Body itself here: brochure, history, numbers, etc. You get the picture, that website is untapped gold at the moment. --truflip99 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been working on the article. What do you think?. --Urbanoc (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Truflip99: Sorry to disturb you by pinging, but I see you are quite busy improving rail articles, so you may not have seen the above message. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, Urbanoc. Let's keep this going.

• Under Facilities, it would look better in paragraphs rather than one sentence per line.
• Toyota Auto Body Research and Development does not need its own section if that's all there is to say about it. Either expand it or merge it with the prose in Facilities
• Under Overseas subsidiaries, use variety in your language instead of writing it in a timeline format.
• The color scheme you use for the table under products is a little hard on the eyes. I suggest using more light, netural colors. Also, replace the notes detailing what the colors mean with a Key table instead. An example of this can be found in MAX Red Line#Stations

Let me know if you have questions. --truflip99 (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Truflip99: what do you think? (NOTE:I just ping you to make you know I commented, but I have no rush. Please check things when you aren't busy). --Urbanoc (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, looks heaps better! You might want to read this short suggestion on how to write chronological events to help with your prose. But yes, looks a lot better. Let's tackle the content now. --truflip99 (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Status query

truflip99, Urbanoc, what is the status of this review? It has been over two months since the last post to this page, and there has only been a minor typo-fixing edit to the article since then. Can we get this moving again? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this back to my attention. I've been busy with my actual job and have not had time to pursue much WP editing and because of that I will give the editor a week from today to make a substantial edit until I auto fail. Please feel free to ask for questions/guidance within that time. --truflip99 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Truflip99: Hi. I don't really really know how to continue with this. So, if you think the article is far from reaching GA status, it's better if you fail it right away. As you're busy in real life, I don't see the point on dragging this any longer. You already gave this a try, and you can use your limited editing time to focus on things you feel have potential. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Urbanoc: Sorry to hear that. If would like, I would love to revisit this in the future when I have more time for editing. --truflip99 (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)