Talk:Tokyo Tower/GA1

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

Fail I do not believe that Tokyo Tower meets the Good Article Criteria for the following reasons:
 * 1) Not factually accurate and verifiable Per an unreferenced paragraph. Also, the article could use more in-text citations.
 * 2) Not broad enough in coverage Both the articles Appearance and Facilities sections are at least as long-if not longer-than its Construction and History section. I think that the Construction and History section should certainly be expanded before being assigned GA status.
 * 1) Not broad enough in coverage Both the articles Appearance and Facilities sections are at least as long-if not longer-than its Construction and History section. I think that the Construction and History section should certainly be expanded before being assigned GA status.

However, I also think that the article meets the following Good Article Criterion: ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Well written The prose appears to be NPOV and generally free of jargon and other problems.
 * 2) Neutral Per first part of above and no disputes on the talk page.
 * 3) Stable No edits lately that aren't minor, uncontroversial changes.
 * 4) Illustrated Per pictures on the article.
 * 1) Illustrated Per pictures on the article.


 * Uh, why didn't you give me a period of time to respond to your review in an attempt to rectify the problems your cited? --TorsodogTalk 13:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)