Talk:A7 (Croatia)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Admrboltz (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Dab links and EL check out.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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):
 * I especially like the noise protection image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I will hold the article. Please see and reply to detailed comments below. This GA Nomination will remain open until 30 December at 02:45 AM UTC. If no changes are made by then, the article will be failed. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I especially like the noise protection image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I will hold the article. Please see and reply to detailed comments below. This GA Nomination will remain open until 30 December at 02:45 AM UTC. If no changes are made by then, the article will be failed. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead should not need to be cited. Please ensure the info from the lead is elsewhere in the prose and remove the references from the lead.
 * per suggestion. All except one references were already in the main text, and the remaining one was moved to the appropriate location.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have several dead links. See the link checker.
 * Interestingly the Novi List (daily newspaper published in Rijeka) removed its entire news archive from the server. I'll provide new references, but should these be kept (without url) since the dates, titles and authors are accurate, or removed altogether?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep them with out the links for now, but keep checking the web archive to see if they show up so you can return the URLs. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * per suggestion--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Route markers, except for the lead infobox marker, since they are all text icons should have  added to them to suppress the links.
 * per suggestion--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lengths should be cited in the infobox.
 * per suggestion--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Move the image from the lead. Text should not be squished between a picture and an infobox. It also pushes the TOC down.
 * per suggestion--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "As of November 2010, the toll charged on the single tolled A7 section at Rupa mainline toll plaza varies depending on vehicle type and ranges from 7.00 Croatian kuna (0.95 euros) to 29.00 kuna (3.92 euro) for semi-trailer trucks.[10]' - toll prices should not be added to articles as the info is subject to change rapidly, and can quickly become out of date.
 * per suggestion--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the first half of the 2010, their toll revenue was 188.2 million kuna (25.3 million euros), although sheer disproportion of lengths of the tolled sections suggest that most of the toll revenue is generated on the A6 rather then this particular motorway." - Sounds like WP:SYNTH.
 * Actually a single source reports the revenue. The latter part is simply a comment on comparative length of tolled sections of the routes operated by Autocesta Rijeka-Zagreb (legislation provides that roads in Croatia must be tolled proportionally to their length - that is if they are tolled at all). How do you suggest I should proceed here? Maybe rewording this a bit to explain this situation and its consequences on the revenue or simply to state the revenue and say what it really consists of?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would state the revenue and what it consists of, but I would also mention that the A6 is much longer (cite it) and let the reader do the SYNTH on their own. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * slightly differently. I found a commercial bank news service portal reporting an income figure for this toll plaza (the only one on the motorway) for 2008 and a TV news report saying specifically that revenue generated by the toll plaza (Rupa) is virtually unchanged in past two years - therefore I reworded and reorganized the paragraph a bit.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Rječina Bridge, a 210 metres (690 ft)" = add  to the convert template.
 * per suggestion--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Orehovica interchange sign image - does this really enhance the viewers knowledge of the highway. Maybe move the lead image down to where this one is and drop this image.
 * per suggestion--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Further construction" header → "Future"
 * per suggestion--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "A7 traffic volume details' table - drop the shields. Also since there are only three data points, maybe this is best covered in prose and not a table.
 * - the first part (shields). I would like to keep the table even though it is fairly short to preserve clarity, unless it's a dealbreaker here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. The shields were cluttering it though. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)