Talk:Incheon Station/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 13:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Hi there, I anticipate completing this review by the end of the holiday weekend, likely sooner. From a first glance the article appears close to meeting the GA criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Formatting of references and notes is good. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

   B. 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):

   I am satisfied both with the reliability of the sources, including newspapers, government sources, and a book covering Korea's history, and with the extent of inline citations within the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   I am satisfied no original research is present based on my checks of several references and comparing them to the material cited to them in the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No concerns based on a basic copyvio check and directly consulting a few of the sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No issues with going off-topic or excessive detail, my concerns are actually that the article needs some expansion per my comments below the checklist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Article maintains an appropriate neutral tone and fairly represents the sourcing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Article history is sufficiently stable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are either public domain (historical photos from the early days of the station) or are properly licensed with Creative Commons licensing and uploaded by a number of Commons contributors. No fair use media is present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are directly relevant to the station and of good quality. The images in the 1908 presentation are missing alt text, the other images are good. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• This source appears to be severely underused. It discusses the limitations of the current station, including its construction and missing links to other rail lines, one of the platforms and its associated track being much shorter than the other, as well as the need for modernization. Inclusion of this information would improve the article quite a bit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Will be doing, I only just found that source today--it didn't exist when I was expanding the article. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Noting I am still waiting on this to occur before I can complete the review. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• I caught and fixed a minor error in one of the references (translator's last and first names were swapped). I recommend doing a quick sweep of the other references to see if any other errors are present. Not a major concern, we are all human and I've certainly made similar errors myself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Caught two more errors myself. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Linking Seoul blue bus to Buses in Seoul, but not the other types, presents somewhat of an MOS:EASTEREGG situation, as a reader would intuitively expect an article on the blue bus as opposed to the bus system in general. I suggest something like "Connecting bus services include Seoul blue bus routes 2, 10, 15, 28, and 45, Seoul yellow bus route 307, and Seoul green bus route Incheon e-Eum 1." Feel free to reword however you feel works best. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for the suggestion in choice of wording. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• I suggest combining the short sentence The Suin Line was discontinued in 1995 with the following sentence.
• You have the original Suin Line linked, but not the rebuilt version that operates presently and has its own article.

• Doing a bit of research, you're a bit correct and a bit incorrect here. The Suin Line article refers to the Suin–Bundang Line as it was between 2012 and 2020 (and Incheon Station was connected to it in 2016). I'll try to get that all in. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• This is me nitpicking a bit, but I suggest limiting the number of sentences which begin with "on" or "in". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I have placed the article on hold pending response to my comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of response for a few days, I've been away for Christmas and New Year's (and a bit inebriated). I'll try to address everything by end of the day UK time. Cheers! ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 20:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't feel rushed, I've caught a case of Covid myself so I don't have much to do other than Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• The expansion I requested has not been carried out. If I do not hear anything further from you, I will be failing this nomination by the end of the weekend, as it is not sufficiently comprehensive without making use of the significant information within that source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, I'm really sorry about how long it's taken, I've been grieving a death in the family, but I will try my hardest to get it addressed. The expansion took longer than expected because I didn't understand what a "두단식 승강장" meant, but I've since learned it refers to a bay platform. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 06:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Freedom4U and @Trainsandotherthings, reminder ping. -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Freedom4U has not been active since January. I'm going to procedurally fail this nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.