Talk:Taketoyo Line

Good articleTaketoyo Line has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 16, 2024Good article nomineeNot listed
October 22, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. ZKang123 (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Taketoyo Line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: AlphaBetaGamma (talk · contribs) 12:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. 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):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·

I have some major concerns for the article. Firstly, the lead of this article doesn't seem to cover adequately about the line subject, given also much of the history and technical details is omitted (perhaps more expansion here is needed). Also there seem to be a couple of references to railfan pages (in Japanese), like refs 6 and 11 bring me to such. @AlphaBetaGamma: are you able to help look over the references for me to confirm?

The history section is also rather brief, though that's fine if not much can be uncovered, but the prose and grammar aren't in great shape there. What's also lacking a couple of other details like signalling and accessibility, and citations needed for the technical data. I also believe the rolling stock section should be rewritten in prose (and remove the gallery too). In all, I don't believe this article doesn't seem to be in the right shape to be nominated for GA, and it seems to be written from a railfan perspective given the priority focus on the rolling stock.

I recommend looking at other railway line articles, like Frankston line or North East MRT line, to note the usual convention for writing railway line articles.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into this problem, but it's 11PM for me right now. Do you mind if I do sort out the issues tomorrow? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright with me too, given it's also late at night here as well haha.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explanations:
  • The history section being short was inevitable, considering section on the jawiki version is also short. I did look around for it, but given the fact the line was just neglected by JR central and JNR after being constructed the history is a bit narrow.
    • I did cut off a lot of "connection plans to airport" area because I felt like the article would derail into something else.
  • I'll take a look on replacements on the mentioned sources while rechecking some. When there was a GANR for Shibayama Railway there was a ton of a issues with sources added by other editors which created "find a mole whack a mole" situation.
  • For grammar - I'll repair it when I wake up.
  • I'll expand the lead to be like Frankston line later on.
  • You pointed out the technical details were omitted, but I was hesitant to add much as I assumed other articles already covered railway signaling and accessibility in Japan.
ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 15:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized what you meant by railfan perspective. I don't remember the rolling stock section being so high in the article... What the hell? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I haven't exactly failed this yet is because I'm considering it could be repairable though not without some significant work. It's also understandable if the history is rather brief too. One thing about the lead though that it claims to have the oldest railway building, but of what? Similar to the claim about the pedestrian bridge. Also, it's fine to rehash information about the railway signaling and accessibility. I think the technical info at the start of the page would also need citations and could be similarly incorporated under an "infrastructure" section. If you think this article is salvageable, then I will work on giving further improvement suggestions.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately today is a holiday, so I have several things to do in the afternoon. Even on holidays I am a bit busy... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, I need some time to repair all this and that, so I'll Withdraw the nomination. Thanks for reviewing. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Really, a lot of work is needed to be done, and all the needed fixes would be beyond the scope of GAN. I suggest also trying to find academic sources on the line as well. I believe there are plenty of books on Japanese railways for reference.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Taketoyo Line/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

[edit]
  • There should be no refs in lead section  Done

Basic Data

[edit]
  • 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

[edit]
  • Add caption to give context  Done

References

[edit]

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

Abolished and Closed Sections

[edit]

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

Images and References

[edit]
  • 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? -  Done
  • User name instead of website wherever possible- (for eg, railway.jr-central.co.jp. should be Central Japan Railway Company instead and so on) -  Done
  • 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)  Done
  • I'll do the actual checking of references later, after the above is done

Infrastructure

[edit]
  • 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

[edit]
  • 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

[edit]
  • 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

[edit]

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...  Done
  • Hanto- this reliable? - Which?
    • Umm, ref-7? ..Then it is a dupe of the above thing...  Done
      • 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.  Done
  • 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

Spot-check

[edit]

Checking every 5th in general (all google translated except ref-28)

  • Ref-4: return train from Atsuta ... no disruption ... passenger cars are coupled
  • Ref-9: typhoon, ... Takahashi ... wave a signal flare at the train to warn of danger. ... killed in the line of duty.
  • Ref-14: do not have station staff on duty ... equipped with new automatic ticket vending machines, intercoms, and ticket checking stations
  • Ref-19: From Higashiura Station, ... Kinuura Rinkai Railway Line... Hekinan Line, leaves Obu Station ... JR Kansai Main Line and JR Tokaido Main Line to Higashi-Fujiwara Station on the Sangi Railway.
  • Ref-23: the 315 series ... Nagoya-Taketoyo section rapid service ... a 4-car train. In addition to the morning and evening rush hour rapid service ...
  • Ref-28: Japan's oldest overpass ... history of over 110 years ... an end on June 5


Overall

[edit]
  • 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]

Will check later, bit busy, but not all references have an english title besides them. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D: ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fixing them bcs its minor enough, so can you check if they are correct, as who knows how accurate Google translate is,AlphaBetaGamma? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is ref-17([Is it possible for the JR line to extend into Centrair?) reliable? publisher seems its a student group? And find the publishers for ref 3 and 6 if possible? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ref 3 and 6's reference details were ripped off from google scholar and jawiki. I don't think there's much to add... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I... failed to find a viable replacement for FN17... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found sources for 3 and 6 which I have added; ref-17 I will take as reliable enough, as it was presented by Nagoya University, which from its wiki page and the citations therein seems reliable enough. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm passing this article. Honestly, and this is meant as constructive criticism, it was hard to review, mostly in the references, and it just limped through. If most of the sources are Japanese, pls give more identifying information. Congratulations on the GA, AlphaBetaGamma}, hope your next GAs would be even better, keep up the good work!DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to review one of the transport articles! ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91 I have a single question - did you use GANHelper to close this nomination? Or is there something I missed... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. I did it manually, without the script. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. 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):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·