Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/2015

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interstate 8

Closed as moot, FAC passed. --Rschen7754 02:42, 12 February 2015 (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.
Toolbox

Interstate 8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: This is Interstate 8, the primary route between San Diego and Casa Grande, Arizona. I've been working on this for about 18 months, off and on, and am finally ready to take this to ACR.

Notes:

  • My usual ACR fixes such as nbsp, OCLC, inflation have not been done yet.
  • This is the most complicated article that I have ever written; extra eyes would be appreciated, especially on the following 2 points:
    • Sometimes, the lines between U.S. Route 80 in California (the predecessor and also a GA) and I-8 are blurred. Should some stuff in this article go there? or some stuff there go here?
    • There are 186 references. Is there stuff in the article that isn't quite essential? Is it too big for one article?

Have fun, and enjoy reading.

Nominated by: Rschen7754 05:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 04:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review by Dough4872

  1. File:I-8.svg - PD-MUTCD
  2. File:Interstate 8 map.png - PD-User, needs GIS data
    Added. --Rschen7754 09:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. File:San Diego Trolley over Interstate 8.jpg - CC-BY-2.0
  4. File:3-line distance sign, I-8, Gila Bend, AZ.jpg - CC-BY-SA-3.0
  5. File:Interstate8SD.jpg - CC-BY-SA-3.0
  6. File:IMPERIAL VALLEY. INTERSTATE HIGHWAY (I-8) SLICES THROUGH GREEN CROPLANDS - NARA - 549098.jpg - PD US Government
  7. File:Interstate 8 Eastern Terminus.jpg - CC-BY-SA-2.5
  8. Captions look fine. Dough4872 04:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Images are good. Dough4872 00:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Review by Moabdave

Review by Moabdave

Prose suggestions:

  1. "the California Highway Patrol estimated the winds blew at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour (160 km/h)." The way this is worded, this implies the CHP estimated wind speed for a specific date. However the rest of the paragraph talks about high wind speed in general. Suggest rewording.
    Clarified. --Rschen7754 02:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. FYI, the Cuyamaca Mountains section briefly mentions a predecessor to I-8 featuring a Dead Man's Curve. There is a wikipedia article for this topic, but I'll grant you the article is crap, and an indiscriminate list of curves dominates over the actual prose. I'll leave that to your judgement if you want to link.
    I'm leaning towards not for this one. --Rschen7754 20:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. "A high line was used to move girders into place; this was the first use of a high line in Southern California road construction" IMO, the term high line should be defined here, as high line has several meanings and I'm not sure which one is the intended one.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 22:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Syntax error: "The federal government fined him $10,000 (about $0.00 in 2012 dollars)"
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 19:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Storm damage section: suggest wikilinking Ocotillo. It's probably linked somewhere else, but it's a big article and this is an important detail.
    FAC has been strict about overlinking lately, so I think one link is enough. --Rschen7754 20:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggested additions: I am impressed with the research done for the construction of I-8, one of the most thorough history sections I've read. However, I feel there are two details that are hinted at but glossed over that I'm aware of in the history of the I-8 corridor. If the sources aren't there to establish relevence to the I-8 corridor so be it, but I'd request to at least look:

  1. "between SR 85 and Butterfield Trail". Suggest expanding. As written this is stating I-8 crosses an insignificant trail. (a similar one off mention is repeated in the History section) However there's a LOT of history here. I don't know the whole story but what I do know is this road is a remnant of the Butterfield Overland Mail, which has a strong history dating back to pre-civil war. In fact, the U.S. government's cancellation of the mail contract along this trail was one of the biggest non-slavery reasons why Arizona Territory decided to secede from the US during the civil war. This trail is arguably the origin of the route of modern I-8, the two routes aren't identical, but from a high level one can note the visual similarities.
    I added a sentence about the significance of the stage line. I'm not sure that the rest is suitable for this article, as opposed to the Butterfield Stage articles (which also have state-detail articles). --Rschen7754 23:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Similarly, the Southern Pacific Railroad is only mentioned once, and not wiki linked. I would like to see that fleshed out a bit more. What I do know is, From Yuma to Casa Grande, I-8 closely follows the UP's (former SP) Sunset Route (that map is an official UP map, can be used as a source, sadly the level of detail sucks) used by Amtrak's Sunset Limited (with the exception of I-8 bypasses the town of Maricopa, Arizona, which was a historical hub along the rail line. This corridor was proposed as the original route of the First Transcontinental Railroad (that article has more info, and sources for this claim) and is the primary reason for the Gadsden Purchase, through which I-8 crosses. When anti-slavery interests persuaded the US Congress to move the proposed route north as to not pass through any pro-slave states, this infuriated the south and was again, one of the biggest non-slavery grievances of Arizona for seceding.
    I added a few more sentences. I am concerned about the article becoming too much about the railroad, though. --Rschen7754 03:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. I'd like to see more history of the historical bridge (used by US 80) over the Colorado River near Yuma. It currently has a passing mention in the Imperial valley section. I know nothing about it, but bridges over the Colorado tend to be notable.
    Copied over some additional material from US 80 CA. --Rschen7754 02:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Good luck, and sincerely well done fleshing out the construction details. The article is well written and I support its promotion even if the 3 expansion suggestions are not implemented. I'm not concerned about the overlap between teh history section of this article and the article U.S. Route 80 in California. The two are so tightly linked that I think some overlap is appropriate. Dave (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'll see what I can come up with over the next few weeks, as I don't think the next review will be completed anytime soon... --Rschen7754 20:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Should be all done now. --Rschen7754 03:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Review by Viridiscalculus

I am committing to reviewing this article. I am not sure when exactly I will get to it, so if anyone else wants to do a review, you can jump ahead of me. I intend to do a content-based run-through, then a stylistic/proofreading run-through, and then a final run-through.  VC  00:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Viridiscalculus: Are you still able to review this? --Rschen7754 18:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I feel obligated to do this, but my passion for doing Wikipedia work has really waned in the past few months, and I have so much going on IRL. I will think about it this week. If I am unable to summon the passion to at least get something up this weekend, I will release myself from my commitment and let someone else have a crack at it.  VC  23:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This review is not happening. I'm really sorry for flaking out on you, Rschen.  VC  23:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand, real life has been busy for me too. --Rschen7754 23:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

Comments by Fredddie

I will take VC up on his offer to let me go first. –Fredddie™ 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox and lead
  1. I'll see about making a better map that shows Mexico.
  2. Rather than using the footnote, do you think the length could be demonstrated better by listing the length in each state under {{{length_notes}}}?
    Done. --Rschen7754 05:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Crossing is used in quick succession.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 05:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, but the two paragraphs don't flow together very well. The second paragraph jumps around.
    Adjusted the wording of part of the second paragraph. --Rschen7754 05:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Construct(ed|ion) is used in quick succession.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 05:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
RD
  1. The four references for the NPS trail seem excessive.
    They show the routing per county. If you have any other suggestions, I'd be open to hearing them... --Rschen7754 04:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    Could we do a combined reference, not unlike Virginia highways? –Fredddie™ 14:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    OK, continuing...
  2. "For its first few miles, it parallels the San Diego River Floodway east." Huh?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 17:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Old Town what?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 17:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Instead of emphasizing "the former SR 209", I'd emphasize its current name and then mention that it used to be SR 209
    Done. --Rschen7754 01:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. "Interchanges with" is used in quick succession.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 01:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  6. Some references are out of order. (multiple times) "I-8 then goes through Coyote Wells before entering the city of El Centro several miles later.[16][14]"
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 01:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  7. The Arizona half of the RD seems...shorter, much shorter, than the California section. If the AZ section was only 80 miles, I'd have no problem with the current length, but the two halves are almost equal.
    Well, but the Arizona portion is basically empty desert, while the California portion goes through the sixth-largest city in the country, a mountain segment, and El Centro. While I have tried to expand the Arizona portion, I'm not sure there's much more that can be added. --Rschen7754 21:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
History
  1. First thing. Type ⌘ Cmd+F and search for "construct". You need to mix it up a bit.
    Done. --Rschen7754 20:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. A San Diego subsection mini-lead can't hurt; two sentences max.
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. A map of the SD area with freeway names, might be a good thing. However, I won't require it.
    Freeway names aren't used that much in San Diego, as opposed to Los Angeles. --Rschen7754 17:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Could you elaborate how the traffic signal would have helped calm morning traffic?
    Done. --Rschen7754 17:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. "The delay in constructing a road to San Diego caused increased development in Los Angeles and resulted in that city becoming the trade and population center of Southern California.[73]" I can't look this up to verify, but it reads like POV.
    Added attribution. --Rschen7754 17:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  6. Pictures in the Cuyamaca section could ease the tl;dr
    Hoping to do this once things in real life work out. --Rschen7754 17:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  7. "While charges were dropped against Bompensiero, Fratianno was found guilty of this
    Seems this was fixed already. --Rschen7754 17:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  8. After Kathleen, a new bridge was rebuilt?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 17:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Auxiliary routes
  1. While this is a case of "This is not that", I feel like if/when this goes to FAC, either the list should be better represented here or all of the list entries should be filled out.
    It's not quite complete, but I've added enough material so that someone at FAC can't say "you should be merging that back into this list..." --Rschen7754 19:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That should do it. –Fredddie™ 16:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fredddie: all replied to. --Rschen7754 19:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • One more thing: "...labor practices in the building of the Imperial County segment led to the federal conviction of Jimmy Fratianno, ..." is wordy. I think it could be refined to "... shady labor practices in Imperial County led to the federal conviction of Jimmy Fratianno, ..." Since the opening clause of the sentence established that the controversies happened during construction, it's not really necessary to repeat it. –Fredddie™ 23:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure that "shady" is the right word to use, but edited otherwise. --Rschen7754 00:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough; I like questionable. –Fredddie™ 01:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I will support now. –Fredddie™ 01:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Review by Evad37

Review by Evad37

Initial impressions

Have only read the lead so far, but I thought I'd make some notes:
  • You ask in the nom comments if the article is too big. The readable prose size is only about 40 kb, so from that respect, it isn't WP:TOOBIG.
  • However, there are about 100 entries in the exit list – could this be cut down to "major" exits, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY etc.
    • We generally list all of the interchanges that a route has. The other alternative is splitting the entire article in two, though that means this ACR would be moot. --Rschen7754 03:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
      • The third option is of course WP:IAR, but this isn't a sticking point for me, just an observation that it seems quite long for a general encyclopedia article's general audience - Evad37 [talk] 01:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There are some long sections of prose, forming walls of text. Assuming more images/media aren't available or relevant, then more sub-headings (or sub-sub-headings) or pull quotes could be used to break up the text
    • I'm hoping to make it out there and get some pictures before this hits FAC. --Rschen7754 04:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I've added 2 photos, 1 current and 1 historical. --Rschen7754 06:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The Auxiliary routes section is very short, especially compared to the length of everything else in the article
    • Yeah... unfortunately, not sure what to do about it. --Rschen7754 17:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In the works cited section, one entry is only cited once, and the other only twice. If you put the full references in the <ref> footnotes (combining the page ranges for the second, or using {{rp}}), this could reduce the page length. But only by a little bit, so I'm not sure it's worth it.

More to come later - Evad37 [talk] 03:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope to get round to it on Sunday my time (UTC+8) - Evad37 [talk] 01:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead

  • Sunset Cliffs Blvd - spell out Boulevard
  • federal conviction of Jimmy Fratianno - who he is, and how that is related to the road, should be briefly mentioned
    • Added "mobster". --Rschen7754 17:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Route description

  • Couple of duplicate links: El Cajon, Imperial County
    • Went through and checked for them. --Rschen7754 17:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • less than 0.5 miles (0.80 km) – would probably read better spelled out as half a mile
  • curves towards the north to take a northeasterly course – Does it curve to the north and subsequently go northeast, or does it just curve to the northeast?
  • SR 85 ... as well as I-8 ... has been – have?

History

  • The I-8 designation ... was designated as I-8 in 1964 doesn't sound right

– San Diego area

  • divided highway – wikilink
  • "Ocean Beach Freeway" – why are there quotation marks?
  • California Chamber of Commerce - wikilink
  • In 1987, Caltrans declared – "Caltrans declared" was used in the last sentence, suggest using different word/wording

More to come later - Evad37 [talk] 08:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

– Cuyamaca Mountains

  • Well before the freeway – is "well" needed here?
    • Removed. --Rschen7754 05:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • recent inclement weather – "recent" seem out of place, what about just having "inclement weather"?
    • Removed. --Rschen7754 05:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The entire 6-mile – spell out as six-mile. Would suggest other single-digit figures also be spelled out.
    • Fixed, didn't notice any others in this section. --Rschen7754 05:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • scheduled to be complete – "completed" ?
    • A bit awkward, yes, but we can't say "completed" because the article was written before the scheduled completion. --Rschen7754 05:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "through some of the most rugged, hottest sections of San Diego and Imperial counties," – quotation needs an inline citation
    • The entire sentence and the next two sentences have citations 80 and 81. --Rschen7754 06:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I would tend to repeat the relevant citation immediately after the quotation, or within a few words if near the end of sentence, so it is clear exactly which one supports the quotation. But this appears to be more than what WP:CITE requires, having re-read that guideline. - Evad37 [talk] 02:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • From the By mid-February 1969 paragraph, "portion" is used quite frequently – consider using synonyms
  • another section was to open in April. However, the grading of the mountain near Viejas Grade and the Sweetwater River had not been completed on the final portion, although dirt and rocks were transported on a conveyor belt across US 80 to become part of an embankment for the Sweetwater River bridge. The way this reads at the moment is 'another section was to open, but grading had not been completed, but dirt and rocks were transported to become part of an embankment' – are those thoughts meant to all be connected like that? Maybe try splitting in separate sentences, or switching the order? i.e. another section was to open in April. Although dirt and rocks were transported on a conveyor belt across US 80 to become part of an embankment for the Sweetwater River bridge, the grading of the mountain near Viejas Grade and the Sweetwater River had not been completed on the final portion.
    • Adjusted. --Rschen7754 06:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • However, due to financial concerns, it was announced in September 1968 – is "however" needed? Could read better without it.
    • Removed. --Rschen7754 06:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The portions between Japatul Valley Road and west of Laguna Junction, and from La Posta Road to west of Boulevard, were delayed – commas as indicated here would improve readability
  • and would leave only an 8-mile (13 km) stretch – "which would leave..." ?
  • The drive time from San Diego to El Centro had been reduced to two hours – is an according to needed here?
    • Not sure what you're saying here... --Rschen7754 06:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Who claims that it was reduced to two hours? i.e. similar situation to your 'should it be "according to X"?' note at the Forrest Highway ACR - Evad37 [talk] 02:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Adjusted. --Rschen7754 03:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In May 1971, El Centro Mayor Alex Gay requested that passing lanes be added to the remaining two-lane portion of I-8 in between El Centro and San Diego due to the frequent traffic jams along that part of the road, in between Japatul Valley and Crestwood; at this time this was the only missing portion through the mountains – long sentence, suggest splitting
  • at $22.6 million (about $191 million in 2012 dollars), at over $5 million (about $42 million in 2012 dollars)[40] beyond budget – second "at" should be removed
  • Pine Valley Creek bridge – link to Pine Valley Creek Bridge
  • the speed limit on all I-8 east of El Cajon, except for the Mountain Springs Grade portion, was raised similarly – Do you know what it was raised from?
    • Unfortunately, no. --Rschen7754 05:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I will get around to finishing the rest of this review - Evad37 [talk] 13:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • All done, and no worries, it's one of the longest articles that's been through ACR. --Rschen7754 06:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

– Imperial Valley

  • The next year, Jacob Dekema – just the surname needed for subsequent use per MOS:SURNAME
  • The other freeways were to be delayed – which other freeways?
    • Added "in the region". --Rschen7754 06:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • two hours, as opposed to the 3.5 hours – spell number
  • north-south roads – should be a dash, not a hyphen
  • Holtville – wikilink
  • was nearing completion in May 1971, which resulted in a continuous freeway – tense and/or wording needs checking. Did "nearing completion" (i.e. not yet completed) result in a continuous freeway? Perhaps split into two sentences "...was nearing completion in May 1971. This project resulted in a continuous freeway..." (or similar)
    • Adjusted tenses. Unfortunately, it's one of those articles that predicts the completion of the freeway on X date but was written before X. --Rschen7754 06:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Work on this portion – the "narrow and curved portion [of SR 115] leading from the freeway into town"?
    • Clarified. --Rschen7754 06:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • While charges were dropped against Bompensiero, Fratianno was found guilty of this. – is "of this" necessary?
  • 1 to 3 years in prison – spell numbers
  • $4,014 (about $0.00 in 2012 dollars) – something's gone wrong here

– Arizona

  • 5 miles per hour – spell
  • state system of highway – is that meant to be plural?
  • because 1200 students who were able to walk to school would no longer be able to do so if the freeway was constructed along that route. – could be simplified to "because 1200 students would no longer be able to walk to school if the freeway was constructed along that route"
  • from there to 4th Street in Yuma, and from there – avoid repeating "from there"
  • gas station – link to filling station (known by many different names around the world)
  • 6-mile - spell

Auxiliary routes

  • Is still very short... maybe you could give each route a one-sentence description stating where it goes from, via (if applicable), and to, which would be a better summary of the main article Business routes of Interstate 8
  • Perhaps use File:Business Loop 8.svg as a thumbnail image

No issues in the Exit list and subsequent sections - Evad37 [talk] 06:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the review! --Rschen7754 06:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (and thanks for your patience) - Evad37 [talk] 08:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I am suspending this nomination and taking the article to FAC. I'm leaving the nomination open in the event that the FAC fails, or the ACR rules change so that this can be promoted on the reviews that have taken place. --Rschen7754 02:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Should this nomination be reactivated, this will need a source review to pass ACR. --Rschen7754 04:15, 27 January 2015 (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 470 (Missouri)

Nominator requested to withdraw this over IRC. --Rschen7754 04:46, 15 March 2015 (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.
Toolbox

Interstate 470 (Missouri) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: This is the second time that this article has appeared here. The first time, it stalled because the main contributor disappeared. Since that seems to be the case again, I will be bold and renominate. –Fredddie™ 03:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Nominated by: –Fredddie™ 03:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 04:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review by Rschen7754

 Done --Rschen7754 04:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess what's kept me from reviewing this is I'm not sure that the issues from the last review were resolved - Fredddie, would you mind taking a look? --Rschen7754 02:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted to pretend that the first one never happened. So, review away. –Fredddie™ 03:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Back during the first review after the nominator vanished, I considered fixing all the issues myself and supporting. However, there is a serious factual error: the first "existed" date is wrong. When I looked at the MoDOT maps back to 1967, I-470 was still there. --Rschen7754 03:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess to clarify my position, I do want to do a full review, but I am worried that if there is such a significant factual error in the article, that there may be more and the article may need to be significantly revised - I'd prefer that this was resolved first. --Rschen7754 05:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Isn't that what reviews are for? TCN7JM 05:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I just don't like reviewing moving targets. --Rschen7754 05:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't exactly have access to Kansas City Star or MoDOT archives, otherwise I'd have an answer by now. What I have from newspapers.com isn't exactly clear. –Fredddie™ 06:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This was four years ago, but what I think I did was click on the link to the 1970 map, and change the URL to say 1967, and that's how I saw the older maps. --Rschen7754 06:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

I was going to say I always like taking a look at articles for roads I've driven on, but then I realized I haven't actually been on this one. Oh well. I guess I'll make my excuse that I have somewhat close relatives in Kansas City.

I'd like to review this, but the issue is whether or not I'll find the time. If somebody wants to review I-470 before I get the chance, go right ahead and jump me. TCN7JM 03:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to note that I have not reviewed this article yet because the nominator expressed to me on IRC that he would prefer I wait until he gets a couple of facts on the article checked. Once I get the green light, I'll go ahead and get started. TCN7JM 06:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: This will need a source review to pass ACR, along with a spotcheck and 3 full reviews (last ACR closed 27 December 2013, and nominator only has 2 FAs unfortunately, just missing the cutoff). --Rschen7754 04:21, 27 January 2015 (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.


Forrest Highway

Article was promoted at FAC - Evad37 [talk] 00:17, 21 March 2015 (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.
Toolbox

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

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Forrest Highway is the shortest article I've nominated at ACR, but I feel this recently constructed road is comprehensive and up to standard. The article was promoted to GA last December, and has recently undergone further copyediting. If promoted, this would take all components of Western Australia's State Route 2 to FA/A-class.
Nominated by: Evad37 [talk] 03:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 03:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

Review by Dough4872
  • I will review this article. Dough4872 03:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. "The existing alignment through Mandurah would form a bottleneck", how can an alignment form a bottleneck? Better wording is needed here.
    There would ultimately be a freeway/expressway-standard road north and south of Mandurah, but not through Mandurah, thus the bottleneck. Evad37 [talk] 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. "The road travels south for 6.3 kilometres (3.9 mi), over the Murray River and through rural land in and beyond South Yunderup.", what kind of rural land does the highway pass through?
    Clarified as farmland - Evad37 [talk] 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. In the history, you need inflation conversions.
    We probably need to look at getting a template built for that... If I recall correctly, there is price index data going back to the 1970s available online for road construction in Australia. I'll have to have a look again. - Evad37 [talk] 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. You mention how towns along the old route were affected with decreasing traffic volume, but are there additional affects to mention such as lost revenue to businesses?
    I've expanded a bit with a new source, but there isn't much info available other than "loss of business" or "loss of trade" - Evad37 [talk] 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise, the article looks good. Dough4872 00:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Issues addressed. I would continue to look into creating an inflation template for road construction in Australia that can be used in this and other articles. Dough4872 00:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
@Dough4872: I've added inflated values. I only found data going back to 1998, but that's enough for this article. - Evad37 [talk] 03:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Dough4872 03:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Incomplete reviews

First review by Fredddie

Since this stopped abruptly, I'll just start over. –Fredddie™

I'll take a look in the next day or so. –Fredddie™ 05:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Side note, if I'm watching the videos correctly, the alignment in your car is terrible. –Fredddie™ 05:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
  1. The infobox length conversion should be the same precision as the cited length.
    Done - Evad37 [talk] 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Question: Is the major cities parameter only used for freeways? Could we use it here anyway?
    No, its not only for freeways. Added to infobox. - Evad37 [talk] 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Lead
  1. The definite article seems to be used inconsistently. Example with emphasis: "Since the 1980s, the state government has been upgrading the main Perth to Bunbury route, by extending the Kwinana Freeway south from Perth, and constructing a dual carriageway on <no 'the' here> Old Coast Road north of Bunbury."
    Removed - Evad37 [talk] 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Since June 2014 is almost over, do you have an update on the construction of the roadhouses?
    I haven't found any new information on the roadhouses

More to come. –Fredddie™ 04:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the review, I'll look into it tomorrow my time (UTC+8) - Evad37 [talk] 15:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just discovered that almost 60 kilometres (37 mi) of road south of Lake Clifton has recently been renamed as part of Forrest Highway [1], so this ACR will need to be left on hold or suspended until I've had time to update the article with that section's route description, history, and junctions. - Evad37 [talk] 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Suspended after 30 days of inactivity with unaddressed comments. --Rschen7754 17:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm reactivating this nomination as I have finished updating the article with a more than 2+1⁄2–times expansion. Pinging @Dough4872 and Fredddie: - Evad37 [talk] 08:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Second review by Fredddie

I will start over. –Fredddie™ 17:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fredddie: were you still planning to review this article? --Rschen7754 00:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Observation

I made one grammar change to this article last week, and have since read through it several times to try to get the true sense of it, My conclusion: It is a disjointed and confusing read for a non-local. My suggestion: Needs review by someone with local knowledge to get the grammar, sequence, and structure right without compromising accuracy. I will watch this space with interest, and will help if I can. Cheers. Downsize43 (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest, Downsize43. Is there any way you could be a bit more specific? I would like to improve the article, but it's a bit hard to fix something if I can't really understand the problem. - Evad37 [talk] 10:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Happy to be of service, I hope.
  • First - some high school writing principles that I find invaluable:
    • Only one idea per paragraph
    • Avoid overly long and/or complex sentences
    • No more than five or six sentences per paragraph
  • While not suggesting that this article seriously breaches any of these principles, there is some scope for improvement.
  • Some general comments:
    • The lede seems overlong, and includes some almost verbatim text from the body of the article
    • Some of the sub-section headings in the History section could be expanded to include a time frame, eg. "New construction in the 1950s"
    • Avoid using the article name as a section etc heading, eg. perhaps "Redesignation as Forrest Highway"
    • Consider reducing or removing the descriptions of the effect of the Forrest Highway improvements on the South Western Highway
    • Consider reducing or removing the Old Coast Road section

NOTE: While browsing the article to write this I got brave and made some minor changes.Downsize43 (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for you spelling and grammer fixes. In reply to your general comments:
  • I've tried to tighten up the lead, but three paragraphs is appropriate for an article of this size, per Wikipedia:Writing better articles#The_rest_of_the_lead_section
  • I've adjusted some of the section headings, let me know what you think
  • Changed to "Forrest Highway after opening", since the content of that section is the history since the opening
  • I think that it is important to show that impact of the highway, as discussed by sources specifically relating the impacts to the the opening of Forrest Highway. Three sentences discussing this does not seem disproportionate to me.
  • I merged Old Coast Road here due to the significant overlap of the histories, and the description of these former sections of the Perth–Bunbury route seems appropriate to mention in the context of the current Perth–Bunbury route. This is not unprecedented, including related routes below the junction list is quite common for U.S. roads.
Please let me know if you have any other suggestions, or want to discuss these points further. - Evad37 [talk] 04:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I like the new headings. I will give it a good read sometime over the weekend.Downsize43 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@Downsize43: were you planning on leaving any other comments? --Rschen7754 03:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No.Downsize43 (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review by Rschen7754

Review by Rschen7754

I do plan to review this article, though it may be a while before I get to it. --Rschen7754 02:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary checks
  • Citation 10 seems to be missing something.
    Changed to {{cite thesis}} and added details - Evad37 [talk] 11:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Lead
  • £ - British pound?
    Linked to Australian pound - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In June 2014 - a bit too repetitive; maybe "that same month" or something like that
     Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Route description
  • Adding exact distances in between the junctions leads to tedium - isn't that what the major intersections list is for?
    I would have thought most road articles would give distances in the route description, WP:USRD/NEW even says Exact distances are quoted, giving a sense of scale. - Evad37 [talk] 10:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    I think that's referring to "four miles" as opposed to "4.3 miles" or "a few miles". --Rschen7754 16:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    I've adjusted the distances in this section - Evad37 [talk] 06:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
History
  • which was could only be forded by horses - a few extra words
    Removed "was" - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "pastoral" should probably be linked
     Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't need to repeat "1842" in the rest of the paragraph
     Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The coastal route would require -> would have required? also check the rest of the sentence for tenses
     Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • write letters... to whom?
     Done, to the Colonial Secretary (add a link at the previous mention) - Evad37 [talk] 06:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • he news not well received ... was?
     Done - Evad37 [talk] 06:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • it was uninhabited... what was uninhabited?
    the adjacent land... as in "while the adjacent land was still privately owned, it [ie, the adjacent land] was uninhabited" - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • undertake such works -> undertake them
     Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • marine organisms - can we be more specific?
    The source says sea worm, without being more specific, but our page sea worm is a just a set index article - Evad37 [talk] 06:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • improve local amenity -> amenities?
    no, the other definition of wikt:amenity - as in "amenity of the climate" rather than "amenities the hotel provided" - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • reduces -> reduced? Also, should it be "according to X"?
     Done, added "according to" in a footnote - Evad37 [talk] 06:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "nappies" should probably be linked.
     Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Overall a comprehensive article and I should have no problem supporting once these issues are fixed. --Rschen7754 05:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 05:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


I am suspending this ACR as I have nominated the article at FAC - Evad37 [talk] 09:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: Should this nomination be reactivated, this will need a source review to pass ACR. --Rschen7754 04:15, 27 January 2015 (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.


Ontario Highway 404

Promoted. --Rschen7754 13:42, 27 April 2015 (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.
Toolbox

Ontario Highway 404 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: I figure with the new extension to this highway opening in the next few weeks, now is a good time for Highway 404 to be scrutinized. Unfortunately this is one of the few highways where I can't find a precise date for the opening of the first section, but nevertheless it is complete and comprehensive.
Nominated by: Floydian τ ¢ 18:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 04:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

Review by Dough4872
  • I will review this article. Dough4872 04:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. Do you need to indicate the road names along with the route numbers in the infobox? Most highway articles only mention the route number.
  2. "Northbound, the freeway is six lanes wide from Sheppard Avenue to Finch Avenue, where one diverges onto an off-ramp, re-emerging north of Finch", should indicate one lane diverges.
  3. "The freeway passes west of Buttonville Airport and interchanges with 16th Avenue.", interchange should not be used as a verb, maybe change to "reaches an interchange" or something similar.
  4. The sentences "North of Bethesda Road, the freeway crosses through a green space area. Two small lakes are present to either side." should be combined.
  5. " Design work started in 1973,[9] the first contract was awarded in early 1976,[10] and construction began in March 1976 with the awarding of a C$6.9 million contract. " you mention two contracts were awarded. What was the contract awarded in early 1976 for? You mention what the one awarded in March was for. Dough4872 00:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. In this case, it makes more sense given the sources out there and the common public recognition of the roads. For example, despite being downloaded to the Region of York in 1997, the route now designated as Regional Road 7 is still labelled and better known as "Highway 7". The same vernacular applies in the common chat: "Take the 404 to Green Lane", never "Take the 404 to York 19". Given that Highway 401 is currently the only provincial route connected to Highway 404, I think it's best left here.
  2. Done
  3. Fixed
  4. Done
  5. Fixed... same contract, didn't realize it in the jigsaw-like process it was to research this particular article.
-- Floydian τ ¢ 21:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - My issues have been addressed. Dough4872 00:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
(withdrawn)

Review by Rschen7754

I plan to review this article too. --Rschen7754 05:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that if the current proposal at WT:HWY/ACR passes, this will only require 2 supports to pass - thus, I will withdraw this review on the condition that the proposal passes. --Rschen7754 00:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn. --Rschen7754 04:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review by Dough4872

Image review
  1. File:Ontario 404.svg - PD-Canada-Crown
  2. File:Ontario 404 map.svg - cc-by-sa-3.0, needs GIS sources.
  3. File:404 North.JPG - cc-by-2.5, has OTRS permission.
  4. File:Highway 404 at Stouffville.png - cc-by-sa-3.0
  5. File:Woodbine facing south.png - Non-free fair use with rationale, is the rationale enough to justify its use when a free image from the time period may be able to be found?
  6. File:404HOV lane.png - cc-by-sa-3.0
  7. File:Highway 404 Extension.png - cc-by-sa-3.0
  8. File:Ontario Highway 404 approaching the future Doane Road interchange, during highway construction in June 2014.jpg - cc-by-sa-3.0, GFDL. Dough4872 05:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding the NFUR image, there are no other images that I've been able to locate of the two lane Woodbine prior to construction of Highway 404. They may be out there, but locating one is not likely. Unfortunately, this image will also not fall into public domain next year as it is a municipal image not covered by Crown Copyright. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Review by Evad37

Resolved issues

Infobox

  • Map caption missing
  • DVP shield missing

Lead

  • Don Valley Parkway (DVP) – acronym shouldn't be part of the link

Route description

  • suggesting that the length of the Don Valley Parkway was considered in distance calculations – sounds like WP:OR, would need a better source than a map
  • Added a source. The 404 was built as a provincial extension of the DVP. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ETR – is this an abbreviation for something?
  • It is, but its also a correct form of the actual name... "407 ETR" - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

History

  • Studies and environmental into – missing word?
  • began almost immediately – this is the first sentence of a new section, so some reference date should be given
  • Both done. Also noticed a blank citation template here that I filled in. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • delays, the project was delayed – avoid repetition of delay

Future

  • Long term proposals – By whom? MTO?
  • Politicians and line-on-a-map dreamers... Not gonna happen anytime soon but it's been brought up apparently. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • environmental groups – Which groups?
  • Various, but the source I include is from the Pembina Institute - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Exit list

  • The double image on the left leaves a wide gutter of empty space to the left of the table
  • Adjusted the images... let me know if that fixes it. I've got an average 15-17" screen so I know wider monitors get image/table stacking issues no matter what.
  • Looks fine now - Evad37 [talk] 09:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that's always just been Dough rules, and it severely limits the wording choice and readability because of one minor sentence in MOS:FLAGICON. I've tried asking about the meaning of that clause on the talk page of MOS:FLAGICON and gotten no response at all. The first instance I've fixed, but this instance I can't without making it confusing that the shield doesn't apply to Steeles Avenue. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Formerly  Highway 7 – as above, plus "Use of marker images should be limited to the Destinations column(s) only" is also noted in MOS:RJL
  • The second half I'm not changing; the difference in designation and thus marker is the entire foundation for our use of highway markers whatsoever in articles. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Can we find another way or wording it so the route marker isn't in the middle of the text? Maybe: Formerly Highway 7 ; or  Highway 7 until (date) ; or similar? - Evad37 [talk] 09:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That second form works. Done. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Richmond Hill – Whitchurch–Stouffville ... Whitchurch–Stouffville – Aurora ... Whitchurch-Stouffville – Newmarket – if each of these are boundaries, that should be specified as was done for Markham – Richmond Hill boundary
  • Whitchurch–Stouffville ... Whitchurch-Stouffville – endash or hyphen should be used consistently
  • Whitchurch–Stouffville is a municipality, so it uses a hyphen. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Exit 27 doesn't line up with a location, it is shown as being both within Markham and on the Markham – Richmond Hill boundary
  • South of Exit 27 is entirely Markham, while north of it is the boundary line between Markham and Richmond Hill. Highway 404 forms the boundary line between several municipalities, which makes things confusing for an exit list table. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't this make the junction, taken as a whole, at the boundary? – Evad37 [talk] 09:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Exit 41 is shown as being at both "Richmond Hill – Whitchurch–Stouffville" and "Whitchurch–Stouffville – Aurora". If it is actually at the tripoint, that should be specified directly.
  • How would you suggest I go about that? - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • location1–location2–Location3 tripoint – with tripoint wikilinked on first use. (See Kwinana Freeway#Interchanges for examples, there are several tripoints and quadripoints.) - Evad37 [talk] 09:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Got it all fixed up... not sure what I could due for the boundary of Toronto and York/Markham though. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps have "Toronto–York boundary" in the Division column, and "Toronto–Markham boundary" in the location column - Evad37 [talk] 09:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That works. Done. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • , due to Buttonville Airport – ref?
  • Possible interchange location for proposed freeway – ref?
  • What happened to the distances for Regional Road 77 and Bradford Bypass?
  • They are both future interchanges... guess I forgot to leave those two orange. The distance to these interchanges are not provided in documentation and can't be asserted to 1/10th of a kilometre. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It might be worth noting in the last row that it is the northern terminus

References

  • Is the note there actually a reference? I would have put it in a preceding == Notes == section
  • Makes sense to me. Done. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There are several "|chapter= ignored" errors
  • This is a problem with citation templates since the conversion to Lua. I have to do an AWB run through all Ontario highways to change section= to at=... because apparently that akes more sense to the wise overlords of Wikipedia technical. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There are enough references to have columns in the reflist

- Evad37 [talk] 02:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Added some responses. Still have more to do to finish off but internets are limited. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: This will need a source review to pass ACR, and Evad's concerns to be addressed. --Rschen7754 04:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've suspended this since there have not been any edits to this review in 30 days, except for the procedural comment above. --Rschen7754 19:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Now that I have more regular internet access, I've been able to get this going again. I've addressed all of @Evad37:'s concerns above, pending his approval. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Almost there :) - Evad37 [talk] 09:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Support - Evad37 [talk] 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: This will need a source review to pass ACR - Evad37 [talk] 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review by Evad37

Source review

@Floydian: I will do a source review for this article, but first can you fix the errors? Refs 9, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21 show "|chapter= ignored", and ref 20 has "Missing or empty |title= " - Evad37 [talk] 04:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Refs 1, 18, 23, 24, 28: Title should be in title case to be consistent with other refs
  • Refs 5, 6, 22, 23, 25, 27, 30 have dead links
  • Ref 2: Map scale (or "Scale not given") should be specified
  • Ref 6: hyphen (-) should be an endash (–)
  • Ref 7: Department of Highways is ambiguous, location should be specified. Similarly Ministry of Transportation and Communications in later refs
  • Ref 7: The citation currently implies that "Annual Report" is a section within "Summary Report of Department Operations". Is this correct, or should it be the other way around?
  • Ref 18: reduce all caps in quote to normal case, per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • Ref 20 doesn't have any details in it
  • Ref 25: "Ministry of Transportation of Ontario" should be the author and "Government of Ontario" for consistency with other refs.
  • Ref 27: Isn't the committee the author and the regional municipality the publisher – would make this ref consistent with eg ref 36
  • Ref 29: More details should be given, perhaps with {{Cite sign}} – see also the examples there
  • Ref 36: Appendix A is a section within the report, not part of the title

- Evad37 [talk] 03:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Regarding ref 7, this is an error from the Lua conversion that removed the ability to use chapter or section. At doesn't work, and department is causing the current set up. I'm really not sure how to fix this but its aggravating that they deprecated a well-used parameter. Regarding ref 29, I've added that citation template, though the doc doesn't give much more than general CS1 info. Besides this, everything is fixed and dead links updated. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • With ref 7, maybe put the section title in |title=, and the report title in |work= - Evad37 [talk] 05:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Works for me. I'm not sure which style guideline wikipedia follows for footnotes in all honesty, kind of a hodgepodge. Makes it confusing at times. - Floydian τ ¢ 08:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Source review completed - Evad37 [talk] 10:24, 27 April 2015 (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.


Ontario Highway 427

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.
Toolbox

Ontario Highway 427 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Always good for a last week Highway cup scramble, I present Highway 427, the second busiest highway in Canada after the 401 and one of only a handful with an extensive 12-14 lane collector-express system. Not a long highway, but certainly a beast :)
Nominated by: Floydian τ ¢ 03:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 03:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

Review by Dough4872

I will review this article. Dough4872 03:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. The sentence "King's Highway 427 (pronounced "four twenty-seven"), also known as Highway 427 and colloquially as the 427, is a 400-series highway in the Canadian province of Ontario that connects the Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW) and Gardiner Expressway with York Regional Road 7, formerly Highway 7, with an arterial extension continuing 800 metres (2,600 ft) north to Zenway Boulevard, known as York Regional Road 99." is very wordy and needs to be split.
  2. "It is Ontario's second busiest freeway by volume and third busiest in North America", what are the two busier freeways?
  3. In the last sentence of the lead, what is it with the places in parentheses after the other place names?
  4. "The highway weaves through a complicated interchanges" does not sound right. Is this just one interchange or multiple interchanges? If just one, "interchange" should be singular. If more than one, "a" should be dropped.
  5. "Transfers provide a second and final opportunity to cross from express to collector lanes, or vice versa, south of a complicated 1.56 square kilometres (0.60 sq mi) interchange.", what road is this interchange with?
  6. I don't get what "the first and last feature interchanges." is supposed to mean. What are "feature interchanges"?
  7. In the last paragraph of the route description, you use "bends slightly" in two consecutive sentences. One of these instances should be changed.
  8. What is the present route number of the Toronto Bypass near Yonge Street? This is not specifically mentioned.
  9. Was 1955 when the Toronto Bypass near Yonge Street and the four-laning of Highway 27 was complete? This should be made clearer.
  10. When was the widening of Highway 27 into a collector-express route completed? No date is given. Dough4872 00:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. Fixed
  2. Added, also cleaned up the bare url citation
  3. Short answer: large neighbourhoods that those portions of those cities are commonly referred by. Long answer: in many parts of the GTA, the suburbs swallowed villages and towns that existed long before. Those parts within the larger municipalities we have today are still referred to by those names and remain legitimate postal destinations. Etobicoke, Mississauga and Vaughan are all massive municipalities, and as a result people will refer to the old names, though today they are legally just neighbourhoods. What the article is mentioning is that Malton is the northern part of Mississauga near the highway, ditto Rexdale on the Etobicoke side, and Woodbridge for the southwestern part of Vaughan.
  4. Typo, fixed
  5. Added, also switched the conversion to adjective form to make it "1.56 kilometre"
  6. It means interchanges with Rexdale and Finch, the first and last in the list feature interchanges. I've reworded this since it's confusing.
  7. Not sure what happened there, that's the same info presented in two ways. I've merged the two sentences together.
  8. It does mention "A significant portion of this bypass was designed to be incorporated into the Transprovincial Highway, now Highway 401"; not sure how I can incorporate it here without a lot of rewriting.
  9. The full Toronto Bypass (which was 27 and 401) was open in August 1956, so I fixed that date and tried rewording the sentence to make it apparent that the Toronto bypass was Highway 27 and Highway 401.
  10. I don't have an actual date for the other parts of the route, but I know that when the 401/427 interchange was completed, the other construction projects were long completed. I've added a mention of this.
I did these fixes over several days and browser restarts, so I may have missed a fix or two... be sure to double check. Merci pour la review! - Floydian τ ¢ 08:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Issue 4 ("The highway weaves through a complicated interchanges") has not been addressed yet. Also, regarding issue 8, I would make mention of Highway 401 like this: "Construction of the Toronto Bypass began near Yonge Street in 1949 (along present-day Highway 401) and on the four-laning of Highway 27 in 1953." Dough4872 00:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Done and done :) - Floydian τ ¢ 04:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks good. Dough4872 04:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review by Evad37

- Evad37 [talk] 02:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Regarding the not sure, Canada Crown copyright doesn't require publication, and thekingshighway.ca tries to claim that all their photos are copyright regardless (we're the competition after all hehehe) - Floydian τ ¢ 02:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand that websites may claim copyright on everything, including images which are clearly public domain - state libraries in Australia do the same thing. But that's not really issue - if we want to use the image on Wikipedia, we have to show that it is PD, suitably licensed, or have a valid fair use rational. While copyright protection wouldn't require publication, to be PD, the photo would have to be published before 1964, would it not? [3] claims (under section 5. Government Publications) that an unpublished work does not fall into Public Domain. Copyright law of Canada#Public_domain (referenced to the copyright act) and {{PD-Canada}} also specifically include the phrase "after publication". Or am I missing something? - Evad37 [talk] 02:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess Wikipedia is out of date or someone misread. the government claims that "It lasts until the end of 50 years after the year of creation." Combined with the OTRS ticket I acquired from the government earlier this year, once crown copyright expires the item enters the public domain as far as the government is concerned. I've updated the PD Canada crown template accordingly. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks for that. All good now. - Evad37 [talk] 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

Resolved issues

I plan to review this article, though it may be a day or two. --Rschen7754 05:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Initial impressions
  • Map needs a caption, and some labels.
    • Map still needs labels. --Rschen7754 02:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Lead needs more on the history.
  • Why is the history section using inline headers?
  • CS1 error in the references.
  • All done/fixed, except cs1; I figured given the shortness of the History section that the inline headers were more suited. I've just added a TOC limit template to accomplish the same thing. As for the cs1 error... I'm putting my foot down now. Nothing regarding my fellow road editors, but some dink messed up when these citation templates were upgraded, resulting in what is now - several months after the fact - still over 5000 affected articles. The undiscussed workarounds just don't fly by me, and the template needs to be fixed to remedy what was a simple situation for at least half a decade. If this will withhold support, then I will withdraw my nomination until the issue is fixed or the people who caused it create a remedy. I've started an RfC regarding this.[4] I feel this way about the date issue as well, as the maps have 1980/81 printed on them in some cases but 1979–80 in others... but that one I can drop and walk away from (grumbling). - Floydian τ ¢ 21:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This should be fine for ACR; I'd just make sure the issue is resolved by FAC. --Rschen7754 02:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
RD
  • AADT should be linked, and not capitalized.
  • Brown's Line should be linked.
  • As should at-grade...
  • four lane - should be hyphenated
  • becomes displaced - by what?
    • Now "to the west" is repeated twice in the same sentence. --Rschen7754 02:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pearson Airport - link?
  • the first and last interchange with the route - dependent clause
  • IIRC, four lane should only be four-laned, not four-lane. As for Pearson, it's got a link in the lede. All others are fixed - Floydian τ ¢ 21:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
History
  • "initially" - starting from when?
  • It seems a bit vague on the details on the early road. I have no problem with relegating most of the Highway 27 details to an article on Highway 27, but I don't see a link to that article...
  • the largest interchange in Canada - not an independent clause
  • For the third busiest freeway in North America... I just get the feeling that there would be more said about it in newspapers, maybe even books. Are you sure there's nothing else out there? --Rschen7754 01:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed the first three. Regarding the last, I'd think so as well. However, there aren't really any reliable "lists of the busiest highways in North America". I'm not too strongly attached to this tidbit, but I also haven't found anything to counter-claim the crappy source I've tied on the article. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I mean that there would be more written about the highway in general. --Rschen7754 01:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I guess with the 401 and QEW at either end, the 427 is the forgotten middle child :) I've checked books, reports, and newspapers but even something like the day it was numbered isn't fully certain to me. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Suspending after 1 month with no replies; it can be readded following the usual procedure, though if the 1 ACR at a time per nominator limit passes then this will need to wait until the other ACR has passed. --Rschen7754 05:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Should this nomination be reactivated, this will need a source review to pass ACR, and my comments to be addressed. --Rschen7754 04:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Reactivating and working on these fixes at this moment. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Notes made above. --Rschen7754 02:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed the doubling up issue. Not sure where you want labels... none of the other Ontario FAs have a legend. Are you looking for labels ON the map, in the caption, or in the image summary? - Floydian τ ¢ 16:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Usually on the map, indicating a few cities, or the lakes, or some other point of reference. It can usually be done in Inkscape. --Rschen7754 16:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to let this hold up the nomination, though I think the labels should still be added. Support. --Rschen7754 22:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review by Rschen7754

Please bear with me as this is my first source review ever.

  • I would suggest using {{reflist|30em}} as there is a lot of wasted space.
  • Source 6 is a bare URL.
  • For citations like 8 and 10, consider linking to the citation at the bottom.
  • Compare source 29 versus source 30 - can the ISSN be added?

Otherwise I don't see any issues. --Rschen7754 17:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

All done and definitely agreed on that first one. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Source 14 should have a link to the bottom citation too. Also, for cite map, the author= field should be filled out, even if it is just a repeat of the publisher. --Rschen7754 00:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Done and done. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done and ready for close. --Rschen7754 02:48, 14 June 2015 (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.


California State Route 94

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.
Toolbox

California State Route 94 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: I'm hoping to take this to FAC in early 2015, so thought I would send this to ACR now. I know there aren't enough pictures, but I'm hoping to remedy that soon.
Nominated by: Rschen7754 21:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 01:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review by Dough4872

I will claim the image review. Dough4872 01:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Although this is suspended, I will conduct the image review now since new images have been added to the article and can have it out of the way once it is unsuspended. Comments:

  1. File:California 94.svg - PD-MUTCD-CA
  2. File:California State Route 94.svg - PD-self, has sources.
  3. File:California 94 Sign.jpg - cc-by-sa-3.0
  4. File:SR 54 and SR 94.jpg - cc-by-sa-all, GFDL
  5. File:SR 94 freeway.jpg - cc-by-sa-all, GFDL
  6. You should probably standardize the abbreviations for the road in the captions, I see California 94 and SR 94. Dough4872 04:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Voluntarily self-suspending this since there's a bit of an ACR backlog and this needs a bit of polish before FAC. --Rschen7754 05:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Unsuspended now that I-8 is suspended. --Rschen7754 02:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: This will need a source review and 2 full reviews to pass ACR. --Rschen7754 04:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Review by Evad37

Review by Evad37

I'm signing up to review this article - Evad37 [talk] 15:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

  • The abbreviation "S&HC" (in the infobox) should be written out in full somewhere (MOS:ABBR) – and should it be mentioned in the article prose?
    • Done for all CA road articles. --Rschen7754 06:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead

  • west of what became SR 125 – "what" doesn't sound right, perhaps "the road that became" ?
  • Caltrans - link

Route description

  • Passing by the Marketplace at the Grove Mall, the freeway forms the boundary between Lemon Grove to the south and La Mesa to the north, up to the SR 125 interchange where SR 94 turns east, leaving both cities and entering unincorporated Spring Valley and Casa de Oro. – long sentence, suggest splitting
  • turns into a highway – not the best phrasing if there isn't actually a turn involved. Perhaps "becomes a highway" or similar?
  • Image caption: California 94 is inconsistent with the terminology in the article prose

History

  • the Potrero bridge was being replaced – "was being" seems like odd phrasing
  • signed along Broadway, Lemon Grove Boulevard (later Federal Boulevard), and Broadway – is Broadway meant to be repeated?
    • Probably not, fixed. --Rschen7754 06:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Later that year, a toll road that would have tunneled under the Laguna Mountains was proposed by the county Board of Supervisors, that would have bypassed Route 94. – two "that"s in one sentence, suggest rephrasing.
  • Also, should the spelling be "tunnelled", or is this a MOS:ENGVAR?
  • due to the economy – surely it wouldn't be due to the existence of the economy, but rather to e.g. the state of the economy, or an upturn in it, or something like that?
  • 2012 dollars)[18]; – ref should go after punctuation
  • , which would connect to the existing freeway extending to Avocado Boulevard. – should be a comma after "freeway"
    • Not really, since the existing freeway is what is extending to Avocado Boulevard. --Rschen7754 06:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • By 1977, Caltrans determined that much of the SR 94 freeway was congested, with 85,000 to 95,000 trips per day on the freeway – sounds odd that Caltrans really "determined" that the freeway was congested. Perhaps something along the lines of By 1977, much of the SR 94 freeway was congested; Caltrans determined that there were 85,000 to 95,000 trips per day on the freeway. ?
    • Reworded. --Rschen7754 06:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 2-year – spell number

Major intersections

That's all, looking alright otherwise - Evad37 [talk] 15:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

All done, and thanks for the review! --Rschen7754 06:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Evad37 [talk] 03:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Source review by Evad37

This is my first source review, so please let me know if I'm doing it right or not :). Ref numbers are as of the latest revision at 06:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Formatting:
    • Most of the refs wihtout a specified author use "Staff", but some just leave author field blank: Refs 3, 7, 8, 14, 27, 28, 29, 78. I'm including the map citations which put the publisher in the author position, because according to Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#cite_map that is likely to be changed soon.
    • 1, 49: Ellipses in the title seem odd, don't citations usually contain full titles? Or are the ellipses from the original title?
      • @Imzadi1979 and Evad37: The full titles are substantially longer; should they be used instead? --Rschen7754 01:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
        • I think the full titles should probably be used. My reasoning is that, for this article, the References section contains full citation details (as opposed to WP:SFN), and is basically equivalent to an end-of-text reference list. While various real-world citation styles may allow (or require) a shortened title for an in-text reference in certain cases, I would think full titles would be required for the corresponding end-text reference. (Perhaps Imzadi can confirm if I'm on the right track here?) Another option is to just use the chapter number and session number for the citations, and have a relevant quote, which may include ellipses, at the end of the references. - Evad37 [talk] 02:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
          • I agree that full titles are preferable. I will say that the APA guidance for citing social media postings says to quote the full tweet (140 characters) as the title, but for Facebook and other social media they say to quote the first 40 words as the title and truncate the rest, basically an incipit. Now I know that sometimes when dealing with lengthy bill titles (the British Parliament is famous for them) that the legislature will provide a short title for citation purposes. For example, the Patriot Act has a full title of "An Act to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes" and a short title of "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" which can be abbreviated "USA PATRIOT Act of 2001".

            So you could quote the full title of the legislation, you could use a short title if one is provided, or you could use a 40-word incipit, but I wouldn't use ellipses like that to selectively drop words. The incipit version still gives a reader plenty of "meat" to find the specific piece of legislation. Imzadi 1979 → 02:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

            • Done across all (modern) California articles. --Rschen7754 05:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • 5: Title should be "National Highway System: California (South)"
      • Done across all completed California articles. --Rschen7754 21:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
    • 7: Should use document title (like ref 4) rather than browser title
      • Updated across all (modern) California articles a few days ago. --Rschen7754 05:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • 27: "Section" seems unnecessary, surely just "San Diego inset" would do?
      • Fixed, didn't realize inset= existed. --Rschen7754 05:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Source reliability: No problems detected
  • Dead links: Refs 1, 6, 49
    • Refs 1 and 49 have been fixed. --Rschen7754 22:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Reference 6 was fixed in the statewide updates. --Rschen7754 03:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything else I need to check for a source review? - Evad37 [talk] 00:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Imzadi1979: Since you're the most familiar with source reviews, any thoughts? --Rschen7754 17:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you covered the bases, a SR at FAC checks both formatting consistency and reliability. I pretty much agree with what you've noted, Evad37, although I would add a few things.
      • Some publishers/publication names are wikilinked, and others are not. I would suggest wikilinking all of those on first mention, so things like "California State Assembly", "Thomas Brothers", "Federal Highway Administration", "The San Diego Union", etc should get a link if "Automobile Club of Southern California" and "California Department of Transportation" are linked.
        • Removed the links instead, due to concerns about how difficult this would be to manage otherwise. --Rschen7754 18:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
      • For note 78, "California Department of Transportation" should be moved to the publisher parameter not the author one. Also, "California Department of Transportation" should be wikilinked in note 2, not note 78, and certainly not twice in note 78. The eastbound link should be credited to "Sunny Kals" as the author, and "Don Howe" should be the author for the westbound link, with the respective "7/5/2007" and "9/21/2006" dates used. (I'm trying to figure out where the "November 7, 2008" date may have come into play, it appears that there's a different version of the PDFs being displayed. If so, maybe pull the older PDF out of archive.org or update the citation and access-date accordingly?)
        • That date was probably copied en masse to all of the California articles, regardless of the actual date it was updated. Anyway, I've fixed all of the completed California articles accordingly. --Rschen7754 05:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
      • For all of the maps, I'd prefer to see |scale= and |cartography= filled out. If it's a fixed-scale map (in other words, not variable like Google Maps), and the scale isn't explicitly noted, a |scale=Scale not given can be used.
        • Done. (None of the maps used separate cartographers as far as I can tell). --Rschen7754 18:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Also as Evad noted, {{cite map}} is due to be transitioned over to Lua later this month, perhaps in just a week or so. For most USRD editors' map citations, that will mean they'll want to copy the publisher name into |author= so that the output of the start of the citations will have the same look. (Copy, not move as the publisher will be displayed separately in the middle of the citation.) Going forward on copies of paper maps, I'd also recommend adding |location=, just as you'd include the publication location on a book. (It will be fair to assume the location is the same as city where the DOT headquarters is located.) This will enhance our consistency with other citations.
      • One last item to consider is that some titles are in title case, likely as a direct copy of how that newspaper or source rendered them, and others are in sentence case. I would harmonize them all to the same capitalization scheme, and I would also drop extraneous periods in the older headlines ("May Include S.D. Roads in State System" → "May Include SD Roads in State System"), neither action constitutes more than a "minor typographical" change, but does promote a more polished look. I also use non-breaking spaces in citation titles just as I would in the body of the article and for the same reasons.
        • I would prefer to put this on hold for a while, since this would be a significant undertaking across all the completed California articles. --Rschen7754 04:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
          • We're not reviewing the other articles though, just this one. Imzadi 1979 → 06:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
            • Still, I don't see this change as particularly urgent compared to the others, and with 70-80 sources, it is a significant undertaking; I've had plenty of FAs pass without them. --Rschen7754 15:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
              • Done for this article, since I am going to target each individual article for some further changes needed anyway. --Rschen7754 17:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I hope this helps, Imzadi 1979 → 17:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I suspect that I won't have the time needed to work on this in a timely fashion, so I am going to go ahead and suspend this nomination for now. I will resume it when I have more time. --Rschen7754 04:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Reactivating. --Rschen7754 22:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I need to suspend this unfortunately since I don't think that I'll have the time to finish it up soon. --Rschen7754 17:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Unsuspending; I hope to find time to finish this up this week. --Rschen7754 21:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
        • @Evad37 and Imzadi1979: All done (finally!) I am still making a few more adjustments to the citations, but it's probably ready for another look. --Rschen7754 18:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The scale in ref 3 is given as 1"=1900 feet – the units should probably both be spelled out, or both be abbreviated. - Evad37 [talk] 14:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

All the issues I raised have been resolved, but I'll let Imzadi1979 sign off on his part of the review - Evad37 [talk] 01:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Things look good. I'll comment that for note 3, "1 inch=1900 feet" is fine, but the ratio of "1:22,800" is a very simple conversion, or "1 in = 1900 ft" works better to be more compact. (I think the equals sign should have spaces on either side for legibility, but that might be a preference thing.) Nothing else jumps out at me. Imzadi 1979 → 05:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Map scales can be converted to the unit-less ratios very simply. "1:22,800" means that 1 inch on the map represents 22,800 inches in reality. If the original scale were instead "1 in ≈ 1900 ft", an approximation, the scale would be noted as "c. 1:22,800". I'm not sure how we'd want to handle this, but I think that starting to switch over to the ratios over time would be nicer, cleaner and easier for readers than dealing with some maps in inches:feet, inches:miles, cm:km, or even the oddball in:km I've found. I'll also note that most library catalogs I've consulted use the ratios.Imzadi 1979 → 05:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Postscript: I am removing author=Staff for newspaper articles where "Staff" is not explicitly credited, per past objections from others. --Rschen7754 19:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

Review by Dough4872

I'll take another look at the prose. Dough4872 03:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments:

  1. Perhaps some more descriptive information should be added to the lead as to provide an adequate summary of the route. Perhaps you should mention how many lanes wide the road is and whether or not it is divided or undivided along the non-freeway portion along with maybe a general overview of the physical surroundings.
    Not on a road that takes many different forms and is ~60 miles long, no. I've added a little bit.
  2. "The Campo road served as a wagon road providing access to eastern San Diego County as well as Imperial County.", maybe should mention when this wagon road started,
    Would if I could, but it likely predates the newspaper archives. --Rschen7754 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. "The freeway becomes a highway at Via Mercado in Rancho San Diego", should probably indicate "surface highway" since some people might not be able to tell the difference between a highway and a freeway.
    Adjusted. --Rschen7754 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Should mention where SR 94 downgrades from a divided highway to a two-lane road.
    Ditto. --Rschen7754 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. In the history you use both SR 94 and Route 94. Should be consistent with the abbreviations here.
    Route 94 is pre-1964; there is a distinction. --Rschen7754 04:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. The beginning of the sentence "Approval extended to the junction with US 80 by October 1953, and the part from 18th Street to Wabash Boulevard was approved in November 1954." sounds awkward and needs to be reworded.
    Done. --Rschen7754 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. "At one point in 1958, SR 94 was considered as a possible extension of US 90, a route leading to Florida, by the South Bay Highway Association", should mention the route runs from Texas to Florida to provide better context.
    Adjusted, but not exactly that way - not sure the route was from TX to FL at the time. --Rschen7754 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. "The western end of SR 94 connecting to US 101 began the bidding process in late 1958" Did the end of the highway actually begin the bidding process? Better wording should be used here.
    Done. --Rschen7754 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  9. Can the inflation conversions be converted to more recent than 2013 dollars?
    No, it's a national rate that is updated with a significant delay. --Rschen7754 04:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  10. "The highway was designated the Martin Luther King Jr. Freeway by the California State Legislature in September 1989, after a two-year struggle to find a suitable tribute to King in the San Diego area" should provide a link to MLK somewhere here.
    Done. --Rschen7754 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  11. Any estimated date as to when construction on the SR 94-SR 125 ramp will begin? Dough4872 03:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    No, too early for that. --Rschen7754 04:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    All done. --Rschen7754 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is good for A-class. This review may be closed now. Dough4872 05:21, 27 July 2015 (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.

Stale review already under suspension, not promoted. SounderBruce 04:07, 14 September 2015 (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.

Pennsylvania Route 39

Toolbox

Pennsylvania Route 39 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: I re-read the A-Class review from a bit over 5 years ago. [6] I believe recently found source citation has resolved most of the remaining issues from the review at the time. This has resolved it's missing history, including the date the route was established (May 1, 1937), as well as extensions and deletions related to the route.

A peer review was also done in 2013 [7]. Prior to that, there were other reviews; links to those can be found on Talk:Pennsylvania Route 39.

Nominated by: hmich176 09:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 17:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

Welcome back to ACR, LTNS! I'll review this article shortly. –Fredddie™ 17:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox and lead
  • I'm starting to think most of the lead needs to be rewritten.
  1. I'm working on creating a new SVG map, but currently finding accurate river data is holding me up (damn islands). I provide all my sources so it will pass muster at FAC.
    This is done, finally. –Fredddie™ 19:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Is it right to call PA 39 an east–west route? It has a fairly significant north–south segment.
  3. There are lots of unnecessary comma-separated clauses. For instance: "Pennsylvania Route 39 (PA 39) is an east–west state highway in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, in the United States, established on May 1, 1937.[1] Extending 17.68 miles (28.45 km), it starts at North Front Street, north of Harrisburg, and ends at U.S. Route 322 and U.S. Route 422 near Hummelstown and Hershey."
  4. The length can be shortened to "nearly 18 miles (29 km)".
  5. US Highways and Legislative routes don't have their abbreviations explained before they're used.
  6. The legislative route paragraph is unduly long relative to the size of the history section. I'd prefer that it was summarized better than expanding the lead to add the rest of the history section.
  7. Inversely, the post-1960 part of the lead is not long enough relative to the history section.
Route description
  1. The first sentence is very nearly a run-on.
  2. Is it necessary to mention every township through which the route passes?
  3. What's with the random quadrant route? It's not the only QR that PA 39 intersects, so why is it the only one linked?
  4. "PA 39" is used too many times. Better get out the bag of pronouns.
  5. "It enters West Hanover Township upon crossing Beaver Creek and interchanges with Interstate 81 at exit 77" Interchange, in the sense that we roads people use it, is rarely a verb.

Stopping here for now. More to come later. –Fredddie™ 19:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your initial review, as well as working on making a new SVG map. I've started to rewrite the lead; it's a work in progress, but I've eliminated the east-west route verbiage, and reduced comma-separated clauses to some degree. I address the "nearly 18 miles" note. I need to work on the last couple of paragraphs to shorten it into something succinct. As for the route description, I addressed the first sentence, removed township references, used the bag of pronouns to positive effect, and broke out the jar of synonyms to replace "interchanges" with "approaches an interchange." The quadrant route was mentioned was because it was once an article. It was deleted. I've removed the link. --hmich176 14:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Continuing...

  2. This sentence "It heads south from Jonestown Road to intersect US 22 near Skyline View, here an at-grade roadway named Allentown Boulevard." something doesn't feel right about it but I can't put my finger on it. Maybe this is a time where that dreaded comma-separated clause would be a good thing. "It heads south from Jonestown Road to intersect US 22, here an at-grade roadway named Allentown Boulevard, near Skyline View."
  3. "...to the vicinity of Hershey." You could argue the whole highway is in the vicinity of Hershey.
  4. There are still a couple of townships near the Hersheypark links.
  5. I'm not sure the picture of the PA 39 BGS is the best fit for this article. I could be swayed by a compelling argument, though.
History
  1. Lately, when there are section subheaders, I've recommended a section mini-lead before the first subheader. Three or four sentences should do it.
  2. It would be great if the legislative route article had a section explaining how Pennsylvania's LRs worked. THEN, we could trim out some extraneous information and add {{Further|Legislative route#Pennsylvania}} under the subheader. Yes, I realize I'm asking you to work outside of the scope of this article, but consider it me thinking out loud and not necessarily actionable.

More later. –Fredddie™ 02:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed about the Jonestown Road sentence. I made the switch. I'll address the townships shortly. As for the BGS, I'd go with whatever's best for the article. It doesn't fit within the current format of the article very well. That could change with this revision process, however. I already plan to create a section mini-lead before the first subhead. There is some history of Linglestown Road and Hershey Road worth mentioning prior to either road becoming part of PA 39. From what I've read, part of Hershey Road was the first road in the Commonwealth to be constructed using state funding. Linglestown Road also has some decent history behind it. I also found numerous references (albeit subjective) in newspaper opinions that Linglestown Road was considered the worst road in the Commonwealth prior to it's first round of improvements in the mid 1920s. Also, a segment of the road near Progress Avenue was apparently used for experiments by PennDOH. So, there will be more to come regarding the history.
I see where you're going with the legislative route idea, so I changed the link to the List of legislative routes in Pennsylvania and piped it. I can place a further tag and excise some of the extraneous information.
As to the "vicinity of Hershey," once you reach the intersection of PA 39 and Hersheypark Drive, you're in Hershey. Arguably, as you head southwest on Hersheypark Drive towards 322/422, you sort of leave Hershey, because most locals consider the intersection of 39/322/422 to be in Hummelstown (even though the borough border is roughly a half-mile to the west). However, I checked Google Maps to see how it delineates Hershey - PA 39 / Hersheypark Drive is the western border of the area (see [8]), from the Hersheypark Drive intersection all the way down to the 322/422 intersection.
Thanks again, and I look forward to more of your comments! --hmich176 08:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
What I was getting at regarding the "vicinity of Hershey" is that the wording is vague. I think it would be easier for readers to visualize that PA 39 forms the (north?)western city limit here instead of being in "the vicinity of Hershey". –Fredddie™ 04:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand and I will clarify that. Just a question about this though - Hershey is a census-designated place, not an incorporated village / borough / city. Would that be the best way to word it? --hmich176 07:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I will review this one as well. --Rschen7754 05:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review by Dough4872

  1. File:PA-39.svg - PD-self, should be tagged as PD-MUTCD-PA
  2. File:PA 39 map.png - CC-SA-3.0, GFDL, sources should be provided (though I noticed Fredddie is planning on making a new map)
  3. File:Linglestown Square.JPG - CC-BY-SA-3.0 migrated, GFDL
  4. File:Eastern 39.JPG - CC-BY-SA-3.0 migrated with disclaimers, GFDL
  5. File:Route 39 and Progress.jpg - PD-self, maybe should mention year photo was taken in caption. Dough4872 04:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: This will need a source review, spotcheck, Fredddie's review to be completed, my review to be completed, and a third review to be completed to pass ACR. --Rschen7754 04:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Per discussion with the nominator, I am suspending this nomination. --Rschen7754 07:57, 15 February 2015 (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.

Pulaski Skyway

Sent to FAR and removed from USRD scope. Imzadi 1979 → 00:24, 28 September 2015 (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.

Toolbox

Pulaski Skyway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Demote from A-Class
Nominator's comments: For a while, I have been concerned about this article, because it was substantially rewritten over a period of two years by an editor with significant WP:NOTHERE/WP:RS issues who was eventually indefinitely blocked. There is an entire section (Rehabilitation) that did not exist during the last FAR in 2010, and has not been extensively reviewed by others. I think we should take a look at this article and make sure that it meets the appropriate standards.

As a matter of housekeeping, since we have not had one of these in a while: for the review to be closed as successful, this needs three "net" support votes; unlike normal ACR, these votes do not have to be associated with full reviews. Image reviews/spotchecks/source reviews are not required.

Nominated by: Rschen7754 18:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 01:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Also noting that the nominator (User:SPUI) is long inactive. --Rschen7754 18:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dough4872

  1. "bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.
  2. "The landmark structure", WP:PEACOCK.
  3. The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.
  4. "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.
  5. Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."
  6. Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.
  7. Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.
  8. I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.
  9. "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.
  10. The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.
  11. Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."
  12. The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.
  13. "In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence.
  14. The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.
  15. "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.
  16. "In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?
  17. References 3 and 103 are dead links.
  18. The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.
  19. Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.
  20. Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.
  21. Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source. Dough4872 01:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    As a matter of housekeeping, it seems that the original nominator is not active, so it will probably be us fixing the article. So I have to ask, do you believe all of the issues that you mention are necessary to retain FA status? --Rschen7754 04:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    Most of them are minor fixes we can probably undertake ourselves, but some of them are pretty major deficiencies such as the sourcing issues and possible missing information. Those major issues definitely need to be fixed for me to vote to retain this as a FA. Dough4872 04:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Imzadi1979

I have two main concerns about this article.

  1. Is this really part of the USRD scope? We typically exclude bridges from our scope, and I wonder if our project should be claiming this article, since it's essentially about a bridge. Mackinac Bridge isn't in our scope, and Interstate 75 in Michigan covers the bridge, so why is this still in our scope when U.S. Route 1/9 also would cover that section of its routing?
  2. I echo many of the concerns about the stability of the article regarding the on-qoing rehabilitation of the structure. I think that the extensive content related to the rehabilitation is a bit WP:UNDUE in comparison to the rest of the history. It's unlikely that until the project is completed that we could actively enforce a summarization to give it proper weight given the interest in this article by other well-meaning editors.

So in short, I think this needs to be shipped to FAR based on the quality and slow-speed stability issues, and the USRD banner should be removed from the talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 07:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Votes

  • I guess I'll take the initiative here... Reluctantly send to FAR for several reasons. As Imzadi mentions, this isn't really a USRD article; glancing at the content, most of it is what we would expect a bridge article to look like, not a road article. That places it outside of the scope of the HWY ACR. Now, I'm not a fan of kicking an article to the curb just because it isn't a HWY article/is out of our scope. But pragmatically, the article doesn't match the skill set of most of the editors who come by the HWY ACR, and there really isn't much that we can do to fix this article.

Which would be fine if the article doesn't need fixing, but it does. The stability/rehabilitation issues are significant, and require the attention of someone who knows what they are doing. I think bringing this article to a wider venue would be more helpful to resolve the issues; remember, the R in FAR does not stand for removal. Hopefully, this article can retain its FA status, but unfortunately I think it is beyond our abilities here. --Rschen7754 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Send to FAR unless someone wants to work on the mostly minor, but also some major, issues I brought up concerning the article. Dough4872 04:22, 14 September 2015 (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.

Promoted to A-Class by Grahamec (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2015 (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.

Great Northern Highway

Toolbox

Great Northern Highway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Great Northern Highway is Australia's longest highway, with a length of almost 3,200 kilometres (2,000 mi), all in a single state – that's longer than the whole of I-95, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the longest road to be nominated at ACR.
Nominated by: Evad37 [talk] 11:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 19:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Review by Dough4872

Review by Dough4872

I will review the article. Dough4872 19:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Comments:

  1. What is a "sealed" road? A wikilink or a brief description would help here.
    Wikilinked - Evad37 [talk] 05:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. In the route description you use "Mid West" and "Midwest". You should be consistent in usage.
    Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 05:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. In the Perth and Wheatbelt sections of the route description, you should make it clear where National Highway 95 becomes concurrent with National Route 1 in Middle Swan and that National Highway 95 continues along the Great Northern Highway when National Route 1 splits off in Muchea.
    Done - Evad37 [talk] 05:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. The sentence "Great Northern Highway continues north-east for 26 kilometres (16 mi) through to Bindoon, passing to the west of Lake Chittering, curving east to cross the Brockman River, and the back north around the eastern side of Lake Needonga." is choppy and needs to be rewoeded.
    Adjusted - Evad37 [talk] 10:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. The sentence "5 kilometres (3 mi) further north, Bindoon–Moora Road branches off to the north-west, while the highway skirts east briefly then continues north, reaching New Norcia after 46 kilometres (29 mi)." should not begin with a numeral.
    Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 10:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. The sentence "Great Northern Highway proceeds on its journey north, crossing the Yule River and its tributaries and then running parallel to the Turner River, until it reaches North West Coastal Highway, over a 220-kilometre (140 mi) distance" also needs to be reworded.
    Adjusted - Evad37 [talk] 10:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  7. The sentence " After 145 kilometres (90 mi), the highway reaches the turnoff for Derby, Derby Highway, in Wallare, having crossed the Fitzroy River on Willare Bridge." needs to be reworded. I would mention the bridge crossing before mentioning the Derby Highway to keep things in chronological order.
    Adjusted - Evad37 [talk] 10:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  8. The phrase "all year round" can be changed to "year-round".
    I think "Driving was difficult and hazardous all year round." actually sounds better than "Driving was difficult and hazardous year-round." - Evad37 [talk] 10:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  9. Whyndham? I assume this is a misspelling.
    Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 05:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  10. Is "flood plane" the proper term? I thought it was always floodplain or flood plain.
    Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 05:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  11. "2004/05" should be changed to "2004-05" as a dash is used to delineate years.
    The slash can be used to indicate fiscal year, per WP:DATERANGE - Evad37 [talk] 05:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  12. "In September 2013, construction began on a project to straighten and widen Great Northern Highway's curves around Bindi Bindi, due to be completed in January 2015", has this been completed yet?
    That's the latest news I can find at the moment, so presumably its not yet completed - Evad37 [talk] 05:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  13. In the major intersections table, why do the kilometerposts not have commas but the mileposts do? This sounds like an issue with the template that needs to be fixed. Dough4872 03:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    I've raised this at Template talk:Jctint/core#Formatting_of_large_distances - Evad37 [talk] 05:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Concerns addressed. Dough4872 17:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: This will need a source review and 1 full review and an image review to pass ACR. --Rschen7754 04:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review by Rschen7754

Completed review

I will handle the image review. --Rschen7754 01:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel really badly that this nomination has dragged on this long. I've been wanting to review it, but I've been busy lately. If it keeps dragging on I will eventually review it, but if someone else wants to, feel free to take it. --Rschen7754 23:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review by Imzadi1979

A couple of quick comments to start. All of the footnotes use the same date formats, so that's good. A couple of general comments though:

  • I'd harmonize the titles to use either Title Case or Sentence case consistently. In either method, subtitles start with a new capital letter. It's especially apparent when The vital link: a history of Main Roads Western Australia 1926–1996 and The Vital Link: The Transition Years 1996–2006 are both cited with those respective capitalizations.
  • There's also some inconsistency if titles and subtitles are separated by a colon or a dash of some sort. I'm definitely used to the former (CMOS requires it), but again we can and should be consistent. That's a minor typographical change we can make to polish things.
  • I would also harmonize if state names are spelled out or abbreviated in locations. I see "Perth, WA" and "Nedlands, Western Australia" in use.
  • For note 56, I'd include a location for The Advocate to differentiate it from any other publications with that title. (In the US, it's the name of a long-running LGBT magazine, for instance.) On any notes citing the Geraldton Guardian and Express, I would drop the "WA" as a location unless there is another publication by that title. The location in a citation is used as the analog to a parenthetical diambiguator in our Wikipedia titles.
  • Lastly, note 25 is a map that appears to be using the old way of doing things in {{cite map}}. Earlier this year we adopted a more standardized scheme from academia of citing authors of maps as authors, instead of relegating them to {{para|cartography}. (There are still cases where it is appropriate though to do so.) It also appears that the template has |type=PDF when it should have |format=PDF, resulting in a duplication of "PDF" and overriding the indication that the document is a map.If the map has a fixed scale, it really should be indicated, even if you have to use |scale=Scale not given. Typically in citing maps in academic contexts, I've only seen them omit the scale indication if it's variable, like Google Maps.

Now that those formatting comments are out of the way, I can say that every source is appropriately reliable for use in an article on Wikipedia. They're all good maps, good newspaper articles, books, or government publications that pass our basic reliability tests. So if the formatting is polished up, this should have no problems with any future FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 05:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Noting that I've done some of the fixes; subtitle colon/dash harmonisation and location adjustments still to be done. - Evad37 [talk] 07:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979: Fixes should all be done now, if you would like to take another look - Evad37 [talk] 03:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. Just one minor comment though, which is a bit more of food for thought. In my experiences, the general rule is that the place of publication for a source is given as a city, not a whole state, so on what is now note 57 it would list the specific city in Western Australia where The Advocate is published. Imzadi 1979 → 04:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I was having trouble determining a more specific location as their website only described the distribution area (which isn't a single city/location, but "the shires of Gingin, Chittering and some of the fastest growing suburbs of the City of Swan"). Looking into this further, their facebook page gives an address in Midland, WA, so I've used that. - Evad37 [talk] 06:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I'll admit upfront that this review will probably be really slow and might take a month, just because I have so little time right now... but I think it's better than Evad having to wait another 3 months for the review to be closed (which would likely happen otherwise). So, I'll break this up into small pieces.

Preliminary stuff
  • Some sections were effectively just sand - "effectively just" seems a bit colloquial here.
  • NorthLink WA should be linked in the lead. --Rschen7754 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Done these - Evad37 [talk] 02:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Route description
  • 7830 and 17,710 - inconsistent (also see other numbers in that sentence)
    • Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 02:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Out of five stars, 21% was rated -> were? same with 79%
    • I used "was" here because the percentages are of the highway (singular) – i.e. 21% [of the highway] were... doesn't seem right. - Evad37 [talk] 02:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Great Northern Highway begins in at Morrison Road - don't need "at"
    • Adjusted to "begin at" - in isn't really correct.
  • paralleling the coastline for 455 kilometres (283 mi), passing - needs an "and" before "passing"
    • Done - Evad37 [talk] 02:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of the climates should probably be linked
    • Linked tropical monsoon climate - Evad37 [talk] 02:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The highway continues on for six kilometres (3.7 mi), - no need for a comma after that. --Rschen7754 23:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Removed - Evad37 [talk] 02:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
History
  • The Midland Junction Municipal Council - run-on sentence
  • "with the sealed road ending just past the Wheatbelt town of Miling in 1950." - Do we know how the sealed road got there? (There may not be info on this, but I thought I would ask)
  • rather than the historical but slow cattle drives - not following why "historical" is mentioned here.
  • However, the resources allocated to Great Northern Highway were needed just - don't need "just"
  • Same with "even just" later on
  • "Newman was reached" - passive voice i
  • eleven route corridors were investigated - by who?
  • $2.5 billion - there should be a nbsp here (and in similar places)
  • Take a look at MOSNUM - I'm seeing some inconsistencies where you spell out the number versus where you use the numerals.
Future
  • Is the first paragraph still up to date?

This completes the review. --Rschen7754 21:42, 17 October 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/2015&oldid=689546047"