Wikipedia:Peer review/Tokyo Tower/archive2

Tokyo Tower

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have overhauled it again and again, but for some reason people still do not think it is up to GA standards. The last GA review I received was rather... unhelpful. I'm hoping to get one more PR and get this finally promoted to GA.

Thanks, --Torsodog^Talk 02:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Jakob.scholbach I think this article is close to GA level. A couple of comments/remarks:

•  Done Lead: "exactly 332.6" meters? Why do you highlight exactly?
•  Done "In recent years, the tower has been instrumental..." -- unless I missed it, you don't talk about analog/digital in the body of the article. Also, it is not clear why/how it was instrumental in the transition.
•  Done Your style is at times a bit too colloquial, at least for me: "the government feared"
•  Done "Construction section": when reading "taking the title from the Eiffel Tower", I was looking for a comparison of the height of Tokyo tower vs. Eiffel tower. You give it a little later. Perhaps move the 13 meters difference up.
•  Done The excursion on the golf parcours seems a bit off-topic. If it is only related to the tower because of the common owner, I'd trim that section down to one sentence.
•  Done How much is (or better: was) Yen 2.8 billion? (In USD or so)
• "Current Tokyo aviation restrictions limit Tokyo Tower's height" -- to what maximum height?
• Appearance: "Ishii believed", "she saw white as a cool color" -- this wording is quite colloquial.
• When talking about lighting, you use "commemorate" pretty often. Reword here and there (to highlight would be a good choice :))
•  Done Foot Town section: most of the information is, too me, not of encyclopedic interest, e.g. mentioning McDonalds, Baskin Robins' ice cream etc. Trim that down.
•  Done "The third floor is home to more traditional tourist attractions" -- are the other ones untraditional?
•  Done The structure of the whole article: I'd put the facilities, i.e. the architectural structure before the lighting. When I came across the mentioning of Main Observatory in the lighting section, I was a bit surprised "Oh there is an observatory".
•  Done "Broadcasting" section: is the list exhaustive? (Yes --Torsodog^Talk 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Done The language in the "Observation decks" section is too advertising, IMO: "This design allows visitors to have the best possible views of the city" sounds like a catalogue of the tower. Also "not only provides visitors with a view of Tokyo" is pretty much obvious.
•  Done "In pop. culture": two times "locate a scene in". Reword.
•  Done One information I didn't find, and would think is crucial: how many tourists go up there? How did this evolve over time? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)