Talk:Eurasian Land Bridge/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Citations are not supposed to be in the lead unless the information is unique.
Is there more information that can be added to the Background section, as it seems to be a brief summary of several centuries?
A the top of the Trans-Siberian Railway section, add a link to the Trans-Siberian Railway as being the main article for the section.
Citation needed for "Side branches connect directly with Northeastern China (e.g. via Manchouli, and the former Chinese Eastern Railway - which original served as the main, shorter, route to Vladivostok), with North Korea (via Northeastern China, or directly from Russia's Ussuriysk), and with Beijing via Mongolia. A more northerly east-west route across Siberia, known as the Baykal-Amur Mainline was completed in the 1980s. It terminates at the Pacific ports of Vanino and Sovetskaya Gavan."
"Transsiberian" should be "Trans-Siberian".
The sentence "Problems with shipping freight along the Trans-Siberian, however, including backlogs at the Russian Pacific ports caused by dilapidated rail infrastructures, theft, damaged freight, late trains, inflated freight fees, uncertain scheduling for return of containers, and geopolitical tension reduced the use of the route for international trade to almost zero by the 1990s." sounds long and awkward.
"central Asian": "central" should be capitalized.
Move the see also note at the bottom of the Rail links between China and Russia section to the top.
There are several one sentence paragraphs throughout the article. Can these be combined with other paragraphs?

I am placing the article on hold. ---Dough 48 72 18:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation in the lede is for unique information. The stat is not mentioned elsewhere in the article at this time. Cla68 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the background section from two to four paragraphs and added an image. Cla68 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by Vmenkov. (too many intervening edits to easily show by diff on this one). Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cla68 (talk)
Done. Cla68 (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cla68 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are several short, two sentence paragraphs, but no one sentence paragraphs. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor objection[edit]

I object to this article being given GA status with any mention of the LaRouche movement's claims in it, and I have opened an RfC on that issue on the talk page. Cla has created this article at the behest of a banned LaRouche editor, after discussing it with him on Wikipedia Review. The article was previously deleted because that editor created the article, [1] and related articles (using various accounts) as a platform for LaRouche's claims. As currently written, it violates the three core content policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, and most importantly the UNDUE section of NPOV, by including any reference to LaRouche's claims—and they are not only included, but are in the lead and have their own section. It would be inappropriate to give the article GA status while this contentious situation remains. SlimVirgin 07:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contention appears to be from only one editor, as consensus had already been established that the material was ok. I'll continue working on the points you asked to be addressed. Right now I'm on #2. Cla68 (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per an apparent consensus in the content RfC, the LaRouche material has been removed. I'll ask SlimVirgin on her talkpage if she has any further objections. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears the issues regarding the article have been settled, I will now pass it. ---Dough 48 72 01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]