Jump to content

Talk:Japan National Route 119

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Japan National Route 119/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 12:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. This looks like a big one - sorry you've been waiting a while! Ganesha811 (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • No prose issues - pass.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Pass, no issues here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • A translated title for Source 9 (from Wikisource) would be great to have.
  • Added. Pass.
2b. 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).
  • Google Maps, in my view, is not a particularly reliable source. I see that WP:RSP shows several prior discussions which bring up the same issues I have. While I think the information in the article is probably fine, if possible, please find other sources for the facts pulled from Google Maps here.
  • Issue discussed.
  • Guinness is a similarly middling source - I think the sentence should be rephrased to say that this portion of the route holds the Guinness world record for world's longest tree-lined avenue, without implying in Wikipedia's voice that such a claim is correct.
  • Not yet addressed.
  • Issues addressed. Pass.
2c. it contains no original research.
  • Where does the list of major intersections come from? What constitutes "major"?
  • Pass, no issues.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • No issues found by Earwig or manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • No other significant areas of the topic found. Pass.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Pass, no issues with overdetail.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Pass, no neutrality issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Pass, no issues here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • For File:Utsunomiya north road.jpg, please make sure that the file information is given in the proper format, not just in the 'Summary' on Wikimedia. Other image looks good.
  • Fixed. Pass.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • Pass, no issues here.
7. Overall assessment.