Wikipedia:Peer review/Tokyo Tower/archive2

Tokyo Tower

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have overhauled it again and again, but for some reason people still do not think it is up to GA standards. The last GA review I received was rather... unhelpful. I'm hoping to get one more PR and get this finally promoted to GA.

Thanks, --Torsodog^Talk 02:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jakob.scholbach I think this article is close to GA level. A couple of comments/remarks:

Done Lead: "exactly 332.6" meters? Why do you highlight exactly?
Done "In recent years, the tower has been instrumental..." -- unless I missed it, you don't talk about analog/digital in the body of the article. Also, it is not clear why/how it was instrumental in the transition.
Done Your style is at times a bit too colloquial, at least for me: "the government feared"
Done "Construction section": when reading "taking the title from the Eiffel Tower", I was looking for a comparison of the height of Tokyo tower vs. Eiffel tower. You give it a little later. Perhaps move the 13 meters difference up.
Done The excursion on the golf parcours seems a bit off-topic. If it is only related to the tower because of the common owner, I'd trim that section down to one sentence.
Done How much is (or better: was) Yen 2.8 billion? (In USD or so)
"Current Tokyo aviation restrictions limit Tokyo Tower's height" -- to what maximum height?
Appearance: "Ishii believed", "she saw white as a cool color" -- this wording is quite colloquial.
When talking about lighting, you use "commemorate" pretty often. Reword here and there (to highlight would be a good choice :))
Done Foot Town section: most of the information is, too me, not of encyclopedic interest, e.g. mentioning McDonalds, Baskin Robins' ice cream etc. Trim that down.
Done "The third floor is home to more traditional tourist attractions" -- are the other ones untraditional?
Done The structure of the whole article: I'd put the facilities, i.e. the architectural structure before the lighting. When I came across the mentioning of Main Observatory in the lighting section, I was a bit surprised "Oh there is an observatory".
Done "Broadcasting" section: is the list exhaustive? (Yes --Torsodog^Talk 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Done The language in the "Observation decks" section is too advertising, IMO: "This design allows visitors to have the best possible views of the city" sounds like a catalogue of the tower. Also "not only provides visitors with a view of Tokyo" is pretty much obvious.
Done "In pop. culture": two times "locate a scene in". Reword.
Done One information I didn't find, and would think is crucial: how many tourists go up there? How did this evolve over time? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]