Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/TGV/archive1

TGV

This is a self-nomination, although other people, notably Willkm, deserve much more credit than me for the great work they have done on this article. The article went through a peer review already (archive), and I think all the comments have been taken into account. The article is comprehensive, well-referenced, and has plenty of nice, free, images. The only unanswered question I know of may be the size of the article: at 47 Kb, it may be slightly too long. It is a complete guide, and it looks good as it is now; some sections could, however, be moved elsewhere and summarized if necessary. Schutz 00:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good article! Two minor technical points, though: (1) the "References and Further Reading" section should be broken up into separate "Notes" and "References" sections, and (2) anything already linked in the text should be taken out of the "See also" section. —Kirill Lokshin 01:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I have removed quite a few "see also" entries, although I have kept the Shinkansen, even though it is briefly cited in the history section, to keep the list of high-speed trains intact (it should perhaps become a navigational template sometime). Schutz 08:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great! Support from me, then. —Kirill Lokshin 16:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - And while I am at it: see Template:High-speed trains, linked from High-speed rail. Still a bit too rough to be put on the TGV page, but it is a start. Schutz 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
mild Support. I helped out with formatting, copyedits and added some information on recent news events. I agree that it's a little long and suggested a possible subarticle on the talk page. Slambo (Speak) 18:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't think this article is too long at all. Topics like those one require a great deal of detail, and I think anything under 96k is acceptable (Hugo Chavez is a mite bigger, but not inacceptably so). Andrew Levine 22:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good detail on all aspects now. Willkm 23:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Eurostar main page link is a bit vague - perhaps specify that this is only about the actual train, rather than the whole Eurostar operation? Willkm 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very complete, good work. Some minor comments from someone who knows very little about rail transport:

Could have explained what LGV meant earlier (preferably when the term is first used)

Done. Schutz 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth paragraph under "Tracks" is confusing - I suppose it was made from a bullet-point list, but from what I think it means it should be rephrased to something like: "Track alignment is more precise than on normal railway lines, and ballast is built into the stronger profile. [really not sure what the last sentence means]". Link sleepers, too, maybe?

I've added a link to sleepers and took a stab at clarifying the wording regarding ballast as well, plus added a link to profile. Hope this helps.--Lordkinbote 22:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the current of the Italian high-speed line mentioned? Does it run TGV as well? After all, high-speed rail is a different article.

Seems like a fair comment to me, although I'll wait for confirmation from someone else before making a change. Schutz 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to relate to the Protests against the TGV" section (2nd paragraph), and is therefore appropriate information to include.--Lordkinbote 23:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. The protests seem to be about the Lyon-Turin line, that is, an extension of the TGV. However, the "tracks" section include information about the Rome–Florence and other sections, as well as information about Austria, all places where the TGV does not go, which makes me question the relevance, just like Sam Vimes. Schutz 23:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, it does sound a bit odd. I've rewritten it a bit - if you think it makes more sense now, great, but if it still sounds out of place in this article then definitely scrap it. It is probably a minor detail which isn't actually necessary here. I think the connection is that the new lines will join it up direcly with the France-centred "European" LGV network and TGVs will run straight through. I've also cut Austria, but added Switzerland, where TGVs do go. Willkm 00:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but... in Switzerland, TGVs do not use LGVs, so it does not really fit under All LGVs connected directly to the French network .... Too late for me to make the change now, but will look at that tomorrow if still needed. Schutz 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've got rid of Switzerland as it's not relevant to this section. Willkm 01:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Avignon TGV station, opened in 2001, has won particular praise as one of the most remarkable stations on the network" - who praised it? Inline citation, maybe?

I have found two references; the first one could probably be omitted (it is not terribly relevant), but it does contain some praise, and is online. Schutz 23:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another very relevant online one Willkm 00:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind the nitpicking, I just want an FA to be perfect. ;) Sam Vimes 17:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I not mind, but I am grateful — this is how things improve. And it is better than not getting any comment and not being sure if anyone actually read the article ;-) Schutz 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree and appreciate the nitpicking :). Willkm 00:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking now dealt with, support. Sam Vimes 14:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, article looks like a good FA, even at its current length (some FA's have been much longer, especially the image-intensive ones!).--Lordkinbote 00:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done! - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object for now Good start, but there's too much POV against the TGVs. Cognition 21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, I didn't get that impression on my most recent read (granted, it was before many of the edits that have during this nomination process). Could you give a few examples? Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 21:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I don't know much about it, but this seems like an interesting and comprehensive article. Tuf-Kat 01:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A great article about an interesting subject. Just one thing - the lead section seems a bit too long, making the article look unbalanced at the top. Ronline ✉ 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks good, but references mentioned in footnotes should be repeated in the reference section, plus some external links used as references miss 'last retrieved on... info.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]