Talk:TIRTL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 TIRTL was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 28, 2007
Peer review TIRTL has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] GA delisted

This article is badly in need of expansion and references. Plus this page is not linked to. Plus it is not categorized. I agree with the PR, give more research development and research insights. Lincher 01:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I could see the need for references. I've added one for a performance review conducted by MNDOT. JaKaL! 03:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought we agreed that references didn't need to be in "proper reference form" for it to be a good article? —Rob (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
With regards to the page being neither categorized nor linked to, is that a reference to within articlespace itself or in the GA project's supporting pages? I'm confused because neither seems to be listed as an attribute to a good article on WP:WIAGA. JaKaL! 13:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you mean as not being in the criteria though if nobody can access the page it becomes a bit useless to have such a page. In that case, just make sure that some other pages (and it's a namespace thingy FYI) link to it in order for it to have more importance in the WP project. I think the referencing is quite ok for the breadth of the article as it now stands though I doubt the article is broad enough to meet the GA criterion on that. It doesn't even give any dates on the marketing of the device which is crucial for the history of the device. Lincher 16:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess that makes sense :D. With regards to the marketing details, would it appropriate to place that in the lead? --JaKaL! 00:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've placed the fragments of marketing information I was able to glean in the lead section of the article. --JaKaL! 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relist

In any event, all/most concerns have been addressed, I would renom. —Rob (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Again, thanks for your help. JaKaL! 16:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This article needs serious copyediting. The lead paragraph contains numerous grammatical errors. Nothing catastrophic, but it doesn't help the Good Article nomination. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 04:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for being a bit dense, but I can't find the items which need copyediting. Could someone point me to an example or two and I'll make an attempt at a repair? --JaKaL! 06:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll post this to WP:GA/D. Maybe someone can help from there. I still don't see the copyedit problems. --JaKaL! 13:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for TIRTL has failed, for the following reason(s):

You should summarise what the manual says rather than quote verbatim from it; capitalise section headings according to the MOS; and avoid lists such as that under 'specifications'. Prose is good - this section looks at the moment like regurgitation of statistics which aren't of interest to the general reader. Worldtraveller 14:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your feedback. I appreciate you looking at my article. I have implemented the changes that you've suggested to the best of my abilities. Would it be possible to have another look at my article to see if I've implemented the requested changes in a satisfactory manner? --JaKaL! 00:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

I read you listing on the disputes page, I made two small copy edits to the lead. I have renominated for GA. Gnangarra 02:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I see. The changes you made help the lead flow a lot better. Thanks for that. --JaKaL! 12:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of article

Why 'TIRTL' and not 'The Infra-Red Traffic Logger'? I would have thought that the latter would be more appropriate for the encyclopedia (providing that the abbreviation redirects here)  -- Run!  11:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The device is marketed and most commonly referred to by it's acronym. The naming conventions would have us prefer spelled out names over acronyms except in the case where it's known and used almost exclusively in the acronym form. I believe this safely falls under that category. --JaKaL! 12:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

Prose is not compelling (e.g. The two infrared cones projected by the TIRTL's transmitter cross each other and form two straight and two diagonal beam pathways. The two diagonal beam pathways cross each other.) and MoS is not followed in places (e.g. speed, & classification, & should be "and"); intro is not intelligible to laypersons (is a type of non-intrusive axle based traffic counter; okay, what does that mean? manufacturer should not be mentioned in second sentence, maybe third; first explain what the thing does). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll attempt to redress these issues. May take a little longer than the other failed since these problems appear to be more systemic than the others. --JaKaL! 15:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've had a preliminary run at repairing the problems mentioned. How does it look? --JaKaL! 13:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA notes (failed)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

The images to me are the worst offender. They are both taken from the website and our no-free. Can't another be obtained freely? I think the beam diagram should go. I don't find it very helpful towards describing the workings of the machine. Gutworth 02:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other issues (though minor in comparison to the pictures) that I should address that would make this easier to pass? - JaKaL! 16:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank's for asking! There are some readability issues. It the the lead these two sentences in this order don't make much sense: "This product is produced by CEOS Pty Ltd and marketed by CEOS Industrial Pty Ltd. It does this by placing a receiver unit and transmitter unit on either side of the road." I also thought that the section on performance could be removed by taking the final sentence and placing it in the lead (I don't think an explanation of how the study was conducted is needed.) I was wondering if there have been any issues regarding the accuracy and tickets. Has there been an problems with it issuing bad tickets? Oh, and thanks for taking that diagram off. Gutworth 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a go at re-treading some of the sections. Will post here when it's ready. JaKaL! 13:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)