Talk:A9 (Croatia)/GA1

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

Reviewer: InTheAM (talk · contribs) 13:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well-written
The article is well-written. There are only minor fixes needed:
 * The dashes and hyphens need to be made consistent. Some places use hyphens where dashes should be.
 * I tried to make this consistent throughout the article and conforming to WP:DASH. Still, I'm far from sure on this one, so please let me know if there's more to do in this department.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the rest area list, the notes column would read better if they were set up like this: "There are x, y, and z at the XYZ rest stop."
 * per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead is good.

Factually accurate and verifiable
The article is well-referenced, and the sources seem reliable.

Broad in its coverage
The article has a couple issues regarding detail and missing information.
 * The Route description has too much detail about interchanges and roadways that cross the A9 and not enough about the actual route. The interchange details need cut back and a proper description of A9's route needs added.
 * I tried to achieve this cutting back clutter and adding more about the route itself. Hope I hit some sort of balance there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The rest of the sections are good.

Neutral
The article is mostly written in a neutral point of view.
 * However, in the Notable structures section, the phrases "particularly noteworthy" and "most significant" are problematic. It can be fixed by explaining why they are notable/significant. Are they the longest, biggest, most expensive, etc.?
 * Yes, I agree that particularly noteworthy and significant were overdoing it. I tried to reword the section to avoid such terms and explain notability.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Stable

 * The article appears stable.

Images

 * Images are all tagged with copyright status and/or fair-use rationale.
 * The captions leave a little to be desired. I think they need some detail.  For example, the one only says "The A9 Motorway."

I will put the review on hold for 7 days while these issues are addressed. InThe AM 19:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking time to review this article. I think that your comments are helpful and constructive in respect of improving the article and I'll try to address the issues raised here in a day or two, or within the 7 day period at the latest.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to address the concerns raised here, please let me know if there's anything else that need be done. I believe this review helped improved the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I was out of town over the weekend and just now got to see your changes. I'll look at it today and tomorrow and get back to you. InThe AM 20:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Good job. I'm listing it as GA. InThe AM  01:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)