Talk:Taiwan High Speed Rail/GA2

GA Review

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.

Taiwan, Trains and Transport portal links could be added.

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]

"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".
If find it is even a guideline: WP:LAYOUT says so. Done. --23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

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]