Wikipedia:Peer review/List of HOT and ETL lanes in the United States/archive1

List of HOT and ETL lanes in the United States edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a very thorough list, and is very detailed.

Thanks, --Tim Sabin (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I assume that you might want to eventually try for featured list, so here are some suggestions for improvement based on the WP:MOS and WP:WIAFL.

Lists are not supposed to start with "This is a list of ..." anymore.
The current lead is two one-sentence paragraphs, which does not meet WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example High occupancy/toll and express toll lanes is linked twice in 2 setneces in the lead.
Also watch dab (disambiguation) links - hybrid is one. There is a tool for finding dab links in the toolbox on this page.
Avoid the use of words like currently - use "As of 2009" instead or something more date specific. Now /current/etc. can get out of date quickly.
WP:HEAD says that section headers should not repeat the name of the article if possible. What if the one header were "High occuoancy/toll lanes" and the subsections were Current and Planned or Current and Future?
I would not have a header "Current ETL lanes" with the only information under it that there are none. Here could it just be "Express toll lanes" ?
Have you thought of making this into tables and then making those sortable?
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ruhrfisch. I am thinking of making a run for FL, and these comments certainly will help. --Tim Sabin (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome - I am not sure, but some people might object to the specific toll / pricing information per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Another useful thing is to find an FL or two that are as related as possible and use it/them for a model article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]