Talk:A1 (Croatia)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer:  Imzadi  1979   →  10:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article is good, but there are some minor issues to be fixed, detailed below.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * A few comments though about reference formatting, see below.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The images are all good, but for future nominations, you'll want to indicate on the file description page for File:Croatia A1 trafficvolume.gif the source of the data used to create the chart.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Placing on hold.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Placing on hold.


 * Lead
 * "As the route traverses rugged mountainous and coastal terrain the route completed as of 2010 required 351 bridges, viaducts, tunnels and other similar structures, including the two longest tunnels in Croatia and two bridges comprising spans of 200 metres (660 ft) or more." Missing a "the" for proper grammar.
 * "A motorway connecting Zagreb and Split was originally designed in the early 1970s and a public loan was started in order to collect sufficient funds for its construction." missing comma before the "and" because the two sentences could exist separately. Audit the rest of the article for similar compound sentences that are missing commas.
 * ✅ These two are corrected, and the remainder of the article was reviewed for similar issues.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Notable structures
 * "The tunnels on the A1 motorway that are longer than 1,000 m (3,300 ft) are: the 5,821 m (19,098 ft) long Mala Kapela Tunnel between the Ogulin and Brinje interchanges, ..." and other sentences like it have a problem. the second measurement is acting as a compound adjective. The sentence should read: "The tunnels on the A1 motorway that are longer than 1,000 m (3,300 ft) are: the 5,821 m long Mala Kapela Tunnel between the Ogulin and Brinje interchanges, ..." which can be done by adding  to the convert template. Audit the article and fix similar instances.
 * Going along with that specific sentence, I think you should find a way to break the sentence up. Otherwise it is a sea of numbers. It reads like a table converted into a single sentence. I know it was suggested to replace the table in a PR, but this is not a good way to do it. Please find a way to recast the whole paragraph to split the measurements up. You can just state that are of notable along the motorway and then proceed to describe them individually. The minimum length criteria isn't necessary.
 * ✅ Revised.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * History
 * "After suppression of the Croatian Spring and removal of the Croatian leadership that proposed and adopted the construction plan in 1971, all the work related to the Zagreb–Split motorway were cancelled." "Work" is a singular word, so "were" should be switched to "was".
 * "However, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) recognized the route as the southernmost part of the Pyhrn route, giving it the designation E59 in 1975." Since the UNECE is never mentioned again, its abbreviation is not needed. Why clunk up the text with it if it's never repeated?
 * "The construction cost for the Bosiljevo 2–Split (Dugopolje interchange) sector of the motorway were originally ..." Cost is a singular item, so "were" should be "was".
 * ✅ Corrected as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Exit list
 * For readers not familiar with the area, you should provide a key to the graphic symbols used in the list. Icons like these should never appear without either a key, or text equivalent in the table row. (The latter is preferred in case a browser is set not to display graphics or can't display them.) We do try to minimize the amount of graphics used in the tables. Past FACs on highway articles even asked for ALL graphics to be stripped out, but highway markers are usually so integral to the visual recognition of a roadway they are important enough to include.
 * The rest areas/bridges/tunnels, since they don't have exit numbers, could span into that column as well.
 * The table doesn't need the top row, since that's duplicating the section heading. The colors could/should be removed from the table header as well. The "exit" column should be capitalized.
 * Any chance at getting distance measurements for the bridges/tunnels/rest areas? For the longer items, use a range to indicate the two ends (12.3–14.5 as an example). If you can do that, then the length measurements in the notes are redundant (anyone needing the length can do the simple math to subtract the ends) and these entries could span across the Exit/Name/Destination/Notes columns (which is the current practice for junction lists). Any additional notes should already be in the article text.
 * A recent addition to MOS:RJL now requires a table footer on all junction lists that displays a conversion key for the distances.
 * Sentence fragments shouldn't have periods in the notes column. Two or more such fragments should be joined together by semicolons or broken into separate lines by line breaks
 * ✅ A symbol key is provided. The icons are used as they are accurate representation of signs used on the motorway itself. The footer also includes a km/mi conversion key. The top row was removed, and the colors used in the 2nd row was also removed. Redundant notes to the structures were removed. Punctuation of the sentence fragments was revised.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are still symbols that are in use without being included in the key. File:Sinnbild Autobahnkreuz.svg, File:Sinnbild Autobahnausfahrt.svg, File:Zeichen 391.svg are not in the key. File:AB-Brücke.svg and File:AB-Tunnel.svg don't need to be in the key partially because the names of the features include the information, which actually makes the symbol purely decorative, and unnecessary. For the Toll symbol, it would not need to be added to a key if the Demerje exit had some text added after the graphic like "Toll plaza".


 * On some further reflection, let me offer a suggestion. Ontario Highway 401 or M62 motorway each offers a potentially more elegant solution to the situation of using the graphics. I ran the article through the alt text viewer, which does show that you've provided alt text for graphics that really don't need it. The practice in the US has been to set  for all highway marker graphics except the main image at the top of the infobox. That's because the graphics are of a more decorative nature in terms of the guidelines for alt text, but at the same time, we only use road sign graphics for the highway markers to address MOS:ICON-related issues. (In general, especially if you want to take this article higher up the chain to WP:FAC someday, you'll end up with suggestions to change these or outright oppose !votes over the issue.) Basically, you're better off to address them now rather than later.


 * In the Ontario case, there is a separate services section which describes the services available. What I'd suggest if you go this route, no pun intended, is a variation on this concept. Create a Services section and discuss the available options in general. Then at the bottom of the section, create a table like what Floydian did in the 401 article, but I wouldn't include match it exactly. Instead since all of your rest areas are named, just use a column for the name, a column for the Operator, Services (in text format, dropping the graphics completely) and Directions. Then in the exit list, just use a colspan for the service area and use text like " rest area". Like the bridges/viaducts/tunnels, set the cell to  and drop the marker graphic in front of the name. The cell should then span from the exit column into the notes column. If these cells don't span into the exit column, the hyphens (-) in that column should be em dashes (—). (Like I said, the MOS nitpickers hate icon graphics, but we've been able to sell them on the concept that the highway markers are necessary for visual identification reasons.)


 * The second situation is that the service areas in the UK are notable enough to receive their own articles, shuttling all of the specific services into those articles. (Not all of the articles have been created at this time, but the concept is still valid.) Template:UK Motorway Service Stations has the full list of service area articles, some of which have been improved to Good Article status on their own.  Imzadi  1979   →  14:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Revised Rest areas into a new section with a RA list plus RJL per discussion.


 * References
 * The foreign language sources should have their original language titles in use with a translated title listed (using the  parameter in the templates). Currently most of the titles have been translated and the original language titles not displayed, and a few don't have translated versions.
 * There is some confusion over what to italicize in the references. Titles of newspapers, magazines and the name of a website get italicized (using the   parameter) but TV station names, website domain names and government agencies should not be in italics since these are the publishers (use the   parameter). There is a difference between a domain name and the name of the website, although sometimes they are the same. *There is some overlinking at work. Only the first citation to a reference by a source/publisher should be wikilinked. "Hrvatske autoceste" is wikilinked every time, with a few uses in italics. If a source is in English, you don't need to indicate that. Source languages on the English Wikipedia are assumed to be in English unless stated otherwise, which you have done well.
 * ✅ Revised as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm placing the article on hold to address these issues. Nothing here is hard to fix, so you should be able to accomplish this in the normal seven-day hold period, but let me know if you have any questions.  Imzadi  1979   →  01:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Result
 * I'm going to pass the article now. There are still some details to iron out, but they are in elements that are not directly in the Good Article criteria.  Imzadi  1979   →  19:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)