Talk:Taiwan High Speed Rail/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 22:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the table under "Ridership", there should be an "s" after "5 minute"
Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of one-sentence paragraphs which could be elaborated or and merged with other paragraphs.
Done with three exceptions, which I have to ask about specifically.

The first is the 'section lede' of the Construction section. Since this is an info pertaining to the entire construction which can't be placed into the sub-sections, and it contains all the info of this kind I or other editors of the article found, I can neither merge nor expand it. Is it okay to leave this one unchanged?
I would say yes.

The second is the first paragraph of the Design and implementation sub-section in the Controversy section. It doesn't belong together with the other two paragraphs, so expanding remains. I can expand on the union protests (there are the three links), if that's not considered a waste of words.
Sure, go ahead.
Forgot to note that in the end I already did -- it might need copyedit though. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last one is the sentence after the current train frequency table. That sentence logically follows the table, so merging it with the paragraph before the table would break the flow. But I can't think of anything to add. --Rontombontom (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK

Taiwan, Trains and Transport portal links could be added.
OK but where? Checking other pages, the place seems to be the See also section, but the THSR article currently lacks one. If I remember correctly, the section was removed after all wikilinks in it were removed because they were too trivial or were already wikilinked somewhere else in the article. Should I add a See also with portal links only? --Rontombontom (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the very bottom of "In popular culture".
Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Clear because if the portals box is left hanging, it changes the right limit for the References, narrowing the columns, which IMHO is more annoying than the vertical whitespace (especially when viewed on browsers set to large fonts or ~800px windows). --Rontombontom (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To fix the above problem, I changed the portal box into a portal bar; I hope that's okay, and it is placed on the right location at the same place (there is no recommendation in the template documentation). --Rontombontom (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page tells me that there are no dead refs, which is quite surprising given the number of refs there are.
There are editors keeping a watch on those links :-) ...which are numerous, but most come from a handful of sites. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are the Executive Yuan and Legislative Yuan? Some quick definitions could be included.
Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words "maker" in "main maker of the French TGV, and Siemens, the main maker of the German ICE." could be replaced with the more-appropriate "manufacturer".
Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Southbound trains are designated by odd train numbers. Northbound trains have the same numbering scheme, but have even train numbers" – according to whom? Please explain why it's odd?
Odd an even numbers, that is non-divisible and divisible by two, as in: Parity (mathematics). Added a wikilink. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got it. I thought odd here means "strange". :)

"for other stations. For Southbound trains" there shouldn't be capital letter for southbound.
Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Train frequency was ramped up progressively from an initial 38 per day." source?
I added the source for the initial 38 per day; but this sentence summarizes the data in the frequency diagram, which is fully sourced on its Wikimedia Commons page. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a minor request, the Commons link could be better positioned under "External links" rather than "Further reading".
I find it is even a guideline: WP:LAYOUT says so. Done. --23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the new link.

The article is really well referenced. With some polishing, copy editing, and some small elaborations and trimming, this article could become a FAC.

Being relatively new to the article rating stuff (this is the first article I nominated for GA), I have to ask: what is and where do I find the conditions for a "FAC" rating? (I or another editor will look at the rest of the criticisms tomorrow.) --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Featured article criteria

Thanks! Now I went through all your points. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.