Template:Did you know nominations/Transforming Infrastructure Performance
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Transforming Infrastructure Performance[edit]
- ... that the British government's Transforming Infrastructure Performance report aims to save the construction industry £15 billion per year? "Industry hails plan to tackle £15bn productivity gap"
- ALT1: ... that the Transforming Infrastructure Performance report recommends greater use of off-site construction that could see schools constructed in around 4 months? "Methods such as off-site manufacturing, where projects are part-constructed before being assembled on location, can boost productivity by reducing waste by 90% and speed up delivery times by more than half (60%). For example, a school that typically takes a year to build could be done in just over 4 months."
Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 10:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC).
- This article is new enough (created and nominated on February 6) and long enough (3333 characters of prose per DYKcheck). Hook length and format are fine. The first hook is more interesting that ALT1 IMO.
- Grammar and clarity are okay. I did a light ce to improve a few things.
- The reference list appears to contain only WP:RS.
- No copyvios per Earwig.
- QPQ is done.
Article is, for the most part, written in NPOV, but it does read somewhat as a statement support for the subject. The main things I notice are:
- Repeated use of achieve and achievement instead of more neutral terms like do, carry out or implement.
- The Aims and Proposed delivery sections are phrased a bit like a grant proposal, focusing heavily on how the plan will succeed, outlining what improvements have been made so far, including laudatory comments like "recent examples of good practice in this field," and using suggestive phrases like "Achievement of these would come from ... " and "Delivery would be supported ... "
- The Reception and implementation section contains only positive remarks and some complimentary language.
- I'm not knowledgeable in this subject, but I believe it would be good to include some balanced discussion or at least context/background for why there is a need for the improvements discussed in TIP.
- I notice that the most cited source in the article is TIP itself. This isn't ideal in the interest of NPOV, and it may be why the article seems to paint TIP in a positive rather than neutral light. It would be preferable to rely more on secondary sources. This isn't to say that no details of the report's contents can come from the report itself, but this should be done sparingly. This is especially true of the Proposed delivery section, where all inline citations come from TIP.
- There are 8 red wikilinks in the prose; perhaps it would be worth it to remove some or all of them, depending on how important or likely it is that those articles will be created.
- Once these things are addressed, I think the hook will be good to go. Armadillopteryxtalk 16:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Armadillopteryx, thanks for your review which I agree with. Unfortunately there has not been much reaction in the press to this report as yet - I think most people are just waiting to see if any actual changes will be implemented. I have attempted to expand with some more viewpoints to balance it out and provided a bit of background on why it was needed. I think all the redlinks I have included are for notable subjects and will hopefully write articles for them in the near future. Let me know what you think - Dumelow (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Dumelow, I think that the expansions and context you've added balance the article out a lot. I've just made a few edits of my own that I think help out with clarity and NPOV, but they're not critical if you don't like them. I also think the new sources you've added contribute useful information to the article. Since the red links are deliberate, and per WP:REDYES, they can all stay as far as I'm concerned.
I say the article is good to go :-) Armadillopteryxtalk 13:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Armadillopteryx, thanks for your review which I agree with. Unfortunately there has not been much reaction in the press to this report as yet - I think most people are just waiting to see if any actual changes will be implemented. I have attempted to expand with some more viewpoints to balance it out and provided a bit of background on why it was needed. I think all the redlinks I have included are for notable subjects and will hopefully write articles for them in the near future. Let me know what you think - Dumelow (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
