Open main menu

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/2013

Pennsylvania Turnpike

California State Route 52

California State Route 282

Interstate 96

California State Route 67

Pennsylvania Turnpike

Interstate 75 in Michigan

Michigan State Trunkline Highway System

Creek Turnpike

California State Route 75

Pennsylvania Route 652

Washington State Route 104

Interstate 37

Mitchell Freeway

Interstate 496

Ohio State Route 161

The article was not promoted. TCN7JM 21:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ohio State Route 161 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Here's the peer review, that no one responded to.
Nominated by:CycloneIsaacE-Mail 23:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 23:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

OK, will begin reviewing right away. –Fredddie 23:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, welcome to ACR, CycloneIsaac! Normally, I go line-by-line and review thoroughly, but there are a number of things that need to be addressed before we can consider doing that.

  1. The lead is far too short. Ideally, it should be at least a full paragraph longer than what you are presenting. However, there are no hard and fast rules for writing a lead so others may disagree with me.
  2. The route description is, to be blunt, not very good.
    1. It's too short. Again, another paragraph that same size would be nice.
    2. It needs to be reorganized. If I were to rewrite this, the first paragraph would be from the west end to I-270. The second would describe between the two I-270 junctions; the third east of I-270. Each paragraph should be about the same length.
    3. Word repetition is pretty bad.
      Interchange 13 times
      Intersection appears 9 times
      Concurrency 6 times
      Freeway 4 times
      • I am not saying you should never use these words, but they should not be used in consecutive sentences; especially not FIVE sentences in a row as is the case with interchange(s).
  3. It does not appear that there was much research put into the history of SR 161.
    1. With just a little bit of digging, you should be able to find the exact day SR 161 was designated. A trip to the DOT library in Columbus would be a great place to start. I'm not saying they will, but they should have a dedicated file for every route.
    2. There is a significant lack of sources that are not the DOT or DOT-related. Maps are generally fine to use, but at ACR we really need to demonstrate notability. It is almost impossible to do that with maps alone. It's time to go to the library and look through old newspapers. Any library worth its salt will have made an attempt to make their microfiche archive searchable.
  • The junction list is a bright spot, but I helped out with that part in earlier stages of the article's progression.

With all this, I have to oppose this article attaining A-Class as-is. Please don't be discouraged. This is a stepping stone to improving your writing and researching skills. I am confident that all of the people who will comment after me would give you some tips. –Fredddie 00:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I will review this article. --Rschen7754 02:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately I will have to Oppose this as well. The main issue is that this fails the FAC criteria for "comprehensive", as not all of the information that can be reliably sourced has been found and included in the article (see WP:WIAFA). Notably the history is only sourced to maps; it provides no information on why the road was built.

I have to concur with the comments about the lead, and there is no map. The route description needs work as well. Again, as mentioned above, don't be discouraged, as GA in itself is an accomplishment; I would work on getting more practice with GA before working towards ACR. --Rschen7754 08:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

  1. A map of the route should be added to the article.
  2. The lead of the article is awfully short.
  3. The route description is very dry. More detail could be added pertaining to physical surroundings and attractions so it doesn't read as simply a listing of intersections and towns.
  4. The prose has several awkwardly-worded sentences such as "SR 161 starts off in Mutual as Milford Road, at a T-intersection at SR 29", "There would be no more major intersections until SR 161 has reached Plain City, as it meets U.S. Route 42 (US 42).", and "The next two interchanges, Hamilton Road and New Albany Road, uses diamond interchanges."
  5. I am sure there is more detail that can be added to the history about the construction of the SR 161 freeway. When was ground broken for the freeway? How much did it cost? Was there any opposition or controversy? A little hard research may need to be done here.

As such, this article has several issues before it can seriously be considered for A-class. Therefore, I will have to oppose. I would suggest doing some more research, do some copyediting, and expand the article as suggested before renominating it here again. Dough4872 19:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

D21 road (Croatia)

County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan)

The article was promoted.—CycloneIsaacE-Mail 04:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Site of the first highway centerline in the US, I present to you CR 492. (Scott5114 was there this past summer, btw.) Anyway, I know there aren't photos of the roadway, but that's also being rectified as soon as possible.
Nominated by: Imzadi 1979  21:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 21:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

Review by TCN7JM

It's nice to see a CR at ACR. I'll go ahead and take a look later on. TCN7JM 21:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Only one comment here: I've never heard of a terminus being on another highway. Maybe use a different preposition?

More to come, though I must ask if it is at all possible for a map to be made. No GIS data for county roads? TCN7JM 21:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Route description
  • Isn't "residential neighborhoods" redundant?
  • I would propose just linking "tuberculosis". Not sure the "tuberculosis sanitarium" redlink is going to turn blue anytime soon.
  • In the very next sentence, you use "before" as a preposition twice and it doesn't read very well.
  • Why have you linked CR 550, but not CR 500?
History
  • I'm a bit confused. You say in the RD that drivers at the US 41/M-28 intersection have to the Michigan-left-esque thing, but in the History, you say that they no longer have to. Could you please explain?

That's all I have to say. TCN7JM 18:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, copyedits applied. CR 550 has an article started in a sandbox because it's one of the last primary CRs in the county I plan to give an article. As for the history, I applied a copy edit to clarify that there is a new option to connect the two segments of CR 492. Thanks for the review, and let me know if further tweaks are needed. Imzadi 1979  01:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Concerning the last one, you now have a sentence that switches from past tense to present tense: "After the project was completed, motorists have a second option..." TCN7JM 01:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Okey dokes, you've fixed that sentence. I support. TCN7JM 01:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review by SounderBruce

Without a map or some modern pictures of the highway, I'm not sure if I can approve the article. SounderBruce 21:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  Confirmed --Rschen7754 23:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
A map should be made, even if it's just using the KML. --Rschen7754 01:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Map added. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

Review by Dough4872
  • I will review the article. Dough4872 23:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. "Several historic sites line the roadway as it runs south and parallel to the main highway, U.S. Highway 41 (US 41) through the Marquette Iron Range in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.", perhaps also mention M-28 here.
  2. "The highway was later a part of M-28 before being transferred back to county control.", wasn't US 41 also signed along this road?
  3. In the first paragraph of the route description, you overuse "Maas Street". Can you try to cut down on the use?
  4. "M-35 approaches the county road from the north before yielding to the country road.", what is this supposed to mean?
  5. "Traffic crossing between the two sides have to use the main highway through median turn arounds in a maneuver similar to a Michigan left.", how is this maneuver different from a Michigan left.
  6. I would remove the redlink to CR 550 since CRs are generally not notable enough for articles.
  7. When was the Trunk Line 15 designation first assigned?
  8. " The western end of CR 492 was moved by 2001. Before this realignment, CR 492 followed Brookton Road, parallel to US 41/M-28 before turning to the previous terminus just west of the border between Marquette Township and the City of Marquette." isn't this supposed to be the eastern end? Dough4872 00:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Replies:

  1. Added
  2. No, actually, it wasn't, despite what certain historical markers and news articles that parrot them say. M-15 was routed along the Marquette–Negaunee Road, but when M-15 was redesignated US 41, the latter number was run concurrently with M-35 from downtown Negaunee out into Negaunee Township and then along a county road previously not a state highway into Marquette. M-28 was extended eastward from its terminus in Covington along US 41, but used the former route of M-15 between the two cities before rejoining US 41 in Marquette. So yes, the maps I have prove the historical marker at Dead Man's Curve wrong: CR 492 was never part of US 41.
  3. I don't think four mentions in one paragraph of that size is "overuse", and in any case, the first two usages can't really be separated out.
  4. Traffic along CR 492 has the right of way, and cars on M-35 have to stop before turning onto the concurrency.
  5. The median crossings are connected differently, and the turnaround in US 41/M-28 that northbound traffic along CR 492 would have to use is quite a bit farther away and downhill from the main crossing.
  6. Actually, I have plans to write a CR 550 article based on the news coverage from when MDOT was paying remove several series of curves. Dominic Jacobetti died in office before the state completed the last section of the overall project, but he had previously attempted to get MDOT to take jurisdiction of CR 550 as well.
  7. Unknown at this time; I've been unable to pin down when the MSHD switched from internally designating state trunkline highways as "Divisions" and "Branches of Divisions" and applied that "T.L." numbers were redone as the M- numbers.
  8. Good catch. Updating shortly. Imzadi 1979  00:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The article looks good now. Dough4872 22:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 19:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by TCN7JM

Spotcheck by TCN7JM

I am beginning a spotcheck immediately. The source numbers are as of this revision. I am reviewing the following sources:

  • Source 7:   Great
  • Source 13:   Awesome
  • Source 18:   Superb
  • Source 23:   Fabulous
  • Source 24:   Cool
  • Source 25:   Nice

This will be done within the next couple of hours. TCN7JM 03:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And I'm out of adjectives, so, uh...Support. TCN7JM 04:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interstate 196

Kwinana Freeway

Kansas Turnpike

U.S. Route 8

U.S. Route 141

List of Recreational Roads in Texas

I'm going to be bold and close this review. The nominator has made no attempt to address the outstanding opposes in a month, and suspending the review would not be an optimal outcome here. --Rschen7754 09:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of Recreational Roads in Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: As a part of my attempt to get Recreational Roads in Texas to a good topic, I've decided to go ahead and try to nominate this to be the first A-class assessed list. I'm not sure if this is allowed, but per this discussion and this one, it seemed like nominating the list at ACR was suggested instead of going straight for FLC.
Background aside, here is the main article for Texas' Recreational Road System. The state's smallest highway system (out of 10, counting FMs and RMs separately and not including special routes or toll roads), it contains just 10 designated routes and 1 former route. Four of the routes have separate, stand-alone articles, while the other were all merged from probably the shortest good articles ever. ACR and FLC comments appreciated.
Nominated by: Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 22:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 08:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Image Check by Nbound

Image Check by Nbound
  1. File:Recreational Road 2 map 1940.png - PD-US-no notice - Need to move down to RE2's section
  2. File:USACE Proctor Lake Texas.jpg - PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE - Not sure this image is needed, the road cannot be seen.
  3. File:Rayburn Dam1.jpg - PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE - Caption might read better as "RE 255 passing in front of Rayburn Dam (bottom right)" (or similar)
  4. Texas Recreational Road shields (all) - either PD-MUTCD or PD by Author (await new tags)

I will further hold off on giving a formal support until others have looked into this list article first (and how we will assess it). As the is the first list here and therefore a guinea pig, I dont not want to support prematurely. -- Nbound (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review. I swapped the RE 2 map for one of RE 11 (another image needs review now), and moved it to RE 11's subsection. I'm holding off removing the Proctor Lake picture while I look for a better image. Thanks for the review, I can understand your uncertainty about this. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Removed RE 6 image. I couldn't find a replacement. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 17:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
5. File:Recreational Road 11 map 1961.png - PD-US-no notice or PD-US-not renewed - extends into RE255 on wide displays, consider using {{-}} or {{clear}} to fix. -- Nbound (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. I've also replaced all of the shields licensing to PD-MUTCD, as its the proper license. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You can't say PD-MUTCD for state highway markers except the circles, as they aren't listed in FHWA's MUTCD. They may be listed in a Texas MUTCD, or they may be in a Texas supplement to the federal MUTCD that also bears the same copyright release. Imzadi 1979  23:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
They are listed in the Texas MUTCD, which has basically the same copyright release. Texas MUTCD Introduction, page I-1, section 04 states: "Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered to be in the public domain. Traffic control devices contained in this Manual shall not be protected by a patent, trademark, or copyright, except for the Interstate Shield and any items owned by FHWA or the State of Texas". Since there's no PD-MUTCD-TX or something like that, I believe that it is still correct to use PD-MUTCD. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC).
You will need to create your own PD-MUTCD-TX tag, or use an applicable generic one. While technicially the right license type, its inappropriate to use it if its information is not directly applicable. Thanks for the help with that one Imzadi1979 :). -- Nbound (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Another option is to copy what was done with Michigan's markers, such as File:M-28.svg. Imzadi 1979  07:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Updated all using the new PD-MUTCD-Tex license. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 17:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── As currently stands:

  1. File:Recreational Road 2 map 1940.png - PD-US-no notice
  2. File:USACE Proctor Lake Texas.jpg - PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE
  3. File:Rayburn Dam1.jpg - PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE
  4. Texas Recreational Road shields (all) - either PD-MUTCD or PD by Author PD-MUTCD-Tex See note below...
  5. File:Recreational Road 11 map 1961.png - PD-US-no notice or PD-US-not renewed
I would like a US opinion on whether the Rec shields are owned by "except for the Interstate Shield and any items owned by FHWA or the State of Texas"? -- Nbound (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It has been suggested these shields are possibly PD-textlogo, Im feeling a bit out of my depth on this, so Ill leave a neutral response and defer to someone else, the bulk of the work is already done. -- Nbound (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Someone more familiar with US shielding/copyright should take over. (Otherwise it would have been a tentative support pending reviews) -- Nbound (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Update

I'm going to be on a wiki-break from the 22nd until the 27th, and will have no Internet access, so I'll be unable to respond to any comments for a while. Sorry for any inconveniences. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I will review the article. --Rschen7754 04:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I was planning on giving this a full review, but there still remains a grand total of only one secondary source, with a very passing mention of the system. All we have here are raw statistics, which is useful, don't get me wrong. But we have no clue as to why the system was built or anything like that. Without that information, which was specifically asked for repeatedly and by multiple reviewers at the last FLC, I don't think it's worth my time to do a full review. --Rschen7754 09:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

I looked over the article's changes from the last time I reviewed the article, and I still don't see any serious effort made to add secondary sources. Of the 55 references in use, 36 of them are TxDOT (including its predecessor) and 11 of them are online maps (Google and Bing). That leaves 8 references that are not obviously DOT- or map-related. Let's review them.

  1. Parent, Laurence (2008). Official Guide to Texas State Parks and Historic Sites (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-292-71726-8.
    If it had a section about the highway system, I would expect this book to be cited more than once.
  2. A.I.D. Associates (1972). Sam Rayburn Reservoir and Dam B (Map). Cartography by A.I.D. Associates (1972 ed.).
    Map.
  3. National Park Service (2013). Amistad National Recreation Area Map (Map). Cartography by National Park Service. Retrieved June 4, 2013.
    Map.
  4. Shell Oil Company (1956). Highway Map of Texas (Map). 1 in=26 mi. Cartography by H.M. Gousha Company (1956 ed.). Section K7.
    Map.
  5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (August 2004). Proctor Lake (Map). Cartography by U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved June 23, 2012.
    Map.
  6. Staff. "O. H. Ivie Reservoir". Handbook of Texas Online. Texas State Historical Association. Retrieved June 4, 2013.
    This doesn't mention the RM designation at all, so it can rightfully be tagged {{Notinsource}}.
  7. Kerr, Sharon (July 18, 2007). "Hutchinson, Cornyn introduce federal corridor". Jasper Newsboy. Retrieved September 6, 2012.
    Doesn't really mention the system, just RE 255, and not even very well.
  8. Staff. "Texas Update". A Multi-State Coalition for Transportation Improvements. Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition. Retrieved September 5, 2012.
    Doesn't really cite anything about the system.

Turns out four of the ones that weren't so obvious were maps. So let's recap. 55 sources and all but four of them are the DOT or a map. None of the four are used particularly well, either. Now, I understand the value of maps, but they can't really tell you much about the system – just where the highway is.

At the last FLC, I asked for secondary sources. You found four, but they're not very good. I suggest finding more. Until then, I still oppose. –Fredddie 04:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tonkin Highway

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tonkin Highway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Welcome to Tonkin Highway in Perth, Western Australia, a controlled access highway* with more than a dozen sets of traffic lights. It is an important route connecting Perth Airport to the city's north-eastern and south-eastern suburbs. While the road itself is in the process of being upgraded into a modern gateway into WA, I believe that recent upgrades to the article merit consideration for an A-Class rating.
* Technically, a highway with control of access... but I thought I'd have a little fun with the nominators comments - Evad37 (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Nominated by: Evad37 (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

Review by Fredddie
Overall
  1. Just a reminder to double check if the definite article is used (or not used) consistently before highway names.
    The style I'm using is to use the definite article for bridges, but not highway names (which is also what the book source The Vital Link uses). I have fixed the one inconsistency that I saw. - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Lead and infobox
  1. Infobox looks good
  2. ENGVAR question: Is "north-eastern" and "south-eastern" common usage in Australian English? I'm more familiar with the unhyphenated versions.
    Hyphenated or separate words are more common than the compound form, as noted in MOS:COMPASS (Australian English is very similar to British English) - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    That's the answer I was looking for, thanks. –Fredddie
Route description
  1. In a GAN review by Nbound (talk · contribs), I was suggested to convert a 1/2 mile to 800 m as opposed to 0.8 km. In a similar vein, I would suggest converting 800 m back to a 1/2 mile instead of 2600 feet.
  2. " A further 750 metres (0.47 mi)..." inconsistency with the above. Maybe we should come up with some guidelines as to what proper conversions should be. (See WT:AURD#US_distance_conversions)
    I'll see if anything comes out of that discussion. Also, as long as {{convert}} is used, conversion would have to be to decimals, not fractions, so it would be 800 metres (0.50 mi). - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    Naturally. I just like the look of 1/2 mile over 0.5 mile. –Fredddie
    Changed converted units so that under 400 metres → feet, 400+ metres → miles - Evad37 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. We could use a little more variety in your choice of prepositions (After <distance>... or Another <distance>...) They're fairly evenly spaced, but still seems repetitious.
    Adjusted wording - Evad37 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
History
  1. This is probably not actionable, but take it as a wishlist item. It would be great if we had map of the Perth area circa 1955 with all the proposed highways and freeways.
    The plan is available here: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/plate9complete.pdf
    Similarly further maps from the plan are here: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/5308.asp
    Evad may already be aware of these sources anyway :) -- Nbound (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    Added the 1955 map as an external link (whilst now public domain in Australia due to it's age, as far as I can tell its not PD in the US) - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    Copyright law is not my specialty, so this will do.
  2. Dollar figures from the past should be inflated to 2013 numbers.
    How? (Template:Inflation's documentation specifically warns that it "is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses,..." and "incorrect use of this template would constitute original research.") - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    I was worried that there wouldn't be template support for this... we've had several FAs pass without inflation, for this reason, during the years that we didn't have the proper US figures. --Rschen7754 19:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    Let's make this a long term goal to have. –Fredddie
  3. The word 'stage' is used too many times in quick succession.
    Adjusted wording - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Future works
  1. I'm a big fan of mini-leads for sections when there are third-level headers. A couple summary sentences might be a good idea here.
    Added a mini-lead - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. When you say construction "officially began on 1 February 2013..." did construction begin unofficially before that?
    Some service relocation works started earlier, added the info to the article - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Since the 2001 federal election caused some changes to construction plans, will the new government do the same?
    Add some info re the election & change of government - doesn't appear like there will be changes - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    Might be a good idea to either make a mental note to check on this again in a year or two or add a {{Update after}} to remind you.
Junction list
  1. A little bit of overlinking in the Destinations column.
    Reduced - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's all. Overall it's a great article, but with a few tweaks I don't see why this can't become a featured article. –Fredddie 23:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. I am satisfied with the changes I requested. –Fredddie 18:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


Review by Rschen7754

I will review this article. --Rschen7754 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As you're probably aware, I tend to break my reviews up into several parts, so here goes:

  • Infobox - no issues.
  • RJL - no issues.
Lead
  • wasn't -> was not
     Done - Evad37 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • will see the central section of the highway upgraded - assuming it all goes to plan...
    Wording adjusted - Evad37 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
References
  • Seem reliable. --Rschen7754 08:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Traffic volume
  • I remember there were comments regarding this at your FAC (including where it should be placed) - I would take those into account.
    Changed to the highest and lowest traffic volumes (for each end). I have merged it into Route description, per the FAC (for now at least - I'm still a bit on the fence on the placement issue... will see how the discussions develops) - Evad37 (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Route description
  • The highway heads south as the border between the residential suburbs of Beechboro and Noranda. - forming the border?
  • which is also the border between the suburbs - the city is the border?
  • From this point... on?
  • urban houses - seems a bit odd.
  • Two sentences starting with "Tonkin" in the last paragraph. --Rschen7754 09:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
    The above issues have been fixed - Evad37 (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It was my full intention to give this article a review in good faith, but due to the unnecessarily combative behavior I've seen exhibited on several Australian road article-related discussions, and due to the fact that I'm already behind on several other Wikimedia projects, I don't have the time to fight this one. I'm sorry, Evad37, as this isn't fair to you, but I have to draw the boundaries somewhere. --Rschen7754 00:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


After further discussion on IRC and Nbound's subsequent appreciated clarification of his comments, I have decided to review this article again. Since Fredddie is in the middle of his review, and Nbound was in line after that, I will move to the third slot. I may have to re-review the sections that I have already completed, but it should go faster than starting completely over. --Rschen7754 05:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that Nbound is unable to review this article, I guess I'll go. I don't think I need to re-review what has already been done, and that part of the review will still stand even though it has been hatted. --Rschen7754 04:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

History
  • Stage 4 - was it actually called that?
    Quote from the book source (The Vital Link) is "Stage 4 completed the link between Stage 1 and the Great Eastern Highway." - Evad37 (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "pedestrian subway"?
    Wikilinked to Subway (underpass) - Evad37 (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Check for nonbreaking spaces all over - they should be used between numbers and units, and in figures such as $140 million.
    Done - Evad37 (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Future works
  • A number of improvement works are planned for Tonkin Highway, which will most of the central and northern sections upgraded to a freeway-standard road with grade separated interchanges. - something's missing
    Added "... which will see most ..." - Evad37 (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • the State and Federal governments - should that be capitalized?
    Uncapitalised - Evad37 (