Talk:Shibuya Route/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 03:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I plan to review this article over the coming week. This looks like a pretty short and sweet article, and I think it definitely looks interesting at first glance.

Prose, MOS, coverage, neutrality
Don't see any issues here, but I'll double check later.
 * Update: Looks fine on this front. Passed

Copyvio
Well... Earwig has managed to return a 0% on all sources! Of course, that is probably because they are in Japanese for the most part, but I don't see any issues as much of the info is taken from maps or is properly collated from multiple sources. Passed

Pictures
Relevant picture with a free license - looks all good here. I would like to see a picture of a turnout, but I would assume finding freely licensed pictures of one specifically would be pretty hard, and adding another image to an article this size would not be ideal, so I would say the articles passed on this front.


 * Thanks for beginning the review! I've started fixing the issues outlined above. Best,  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️  14:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! Made some more comments. MSG17 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Distance discrepancy has been addressed as well as the issue with the UN reference. Question, should repeat publishers, such as Metro Expressway Company Ltd., be linked every time? Also, if I were able to get a picture of a turnout myself at some hypothetical future date (I'm in Japan, but pretty far from Tokyo), do you think it would clutter the article?  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️  00:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't have to link the publishers each time, just the first (although I personally link each occurrence for convenience's sake). As for the picture, to me it would be awkward because of how short the section is, so I don't think it would be advisable to add an image. Anyway, with all of these changes (I also added the publisher to ref 4), you have satisfactorily addressed my comments and I deem this article ready to be promoted to GA.
 * Excellent, thanks for the tip and the edit to ref 4. See you over at the review for National Route 58.  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️  02:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's always great working with you, and a real shame to see how long it took for these two articles to get reviewed. I'll get to fully analyzing National Route 58 soon. MSG17 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)