Jump to content

Talk:TIRTL

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeTIRTL was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 28, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 20, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

GA delisted

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Relist

[edit]

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

Will do. Again, thanks for your help. JaKaL! 16:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Good Article nomination has failed

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

GA nomination

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Name of article

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Failed GA

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I've had a preliminary run at repairing the problems mentioned. How does it look? --JaKaL! 13:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA notes (failed)

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Latest GA Review

[edit]

I don't believe this article is anywhere close to achieving GA. In addition to being too brief and narrow in scope, the reading is uncompelling as it sounds more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally with this comment, and I certainly did not intentionally remove it.--Grahame (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:TIRTL/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I performed a copyedit, and the article now complies with the MoS, and reads satisfactory. The lead is not fully satisfactory. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, not introduce it. There are many things mentioned in the lead that are not mentioned in the rest of the article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Most of the article is utterly unreferenced. Only the certifications and some detail are covered. The article needs much more references.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    There is nothing in the article (save the lead) that decribes the manufacturing, marketing and production of the item. Things I would like to know include: when did design start, when did production start, who produces it, how much does it cost, how many have been sold, etc. Of course, much of this is mentioned in the lead, but it also needs to be in the main text. Remember: the lead is completely redundant to the body. However, I am concerned about the length. For articles of this length, authors must make plausible that there is no more to write on the subject.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Free images should should be uploaded to the Commons. I have done this.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am placing it on hold. If all the matters are addressed, I will consder it agains the GA criteria again, at most in seven days. Please do not hesitate if there are any questions or comments. Arsenikk (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A week has passed, and there has been no activity on the article. I am therefore failing the review. Arsenikk (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on TIRTL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:TIRTL/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I'm not entirely sure what else I can add to this page. Anyone have any suggestion to get this article to go forward? JaKaL! (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 13:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 07:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TIRTL → Infrared traffic logger – Use of the common name as title. Geny S. Soboes (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on TIRTL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TIRTL&oldid=1204088637"