Talk:Alberta Highway 3/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 10:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, returning to the lead at the end. Please indicate when issues have been addressed with comments or possibly the ✅ template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text difficult to read at a later date, and it is an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Route description

 * Crowsnest Pass and foothills
 * and the rubble of the Frank Slide. This is sufficiently unusual that I suggest it needs expanding a little here. I know it is described in more detail in the history section, but it is the first point at which I was tempted to follow the link. So "and the rubble of the Frank Slide, a major landslip that occurred in 1903." or somesuch.


 * Lethbridge and southeastern Alberta
 * with a speed limit of 100 km/h (62 mph), despite being a divided highway. Would you expect the speed limit to be different, then? Add a few words to qualify "despite".
 * while the final former of alignment designated as Highway 3A bisects the town. Remove surplus "of".

History

 * Gravelling and upgrades
 * British Columbia (BC) switched to driving on the right in 1921, eliminating confusion and accidents that had been occurring on the road in the vicinity of the border. Was Alberta already driving on the right? If so, half a sentence to clarify this would clear up confusion about which border is meant.
 * The desire for of a trans-Canada route.... Remove surplus "of".
 * A 1929 map of major highways published by the Alberta Development Board listed Highway 3 as part of a southern branch of the Trans-Canada Highway that ran from Medicine Hat to Vancouver via Princeton and Spences Bridge in BC, a route that included portions of present-day Highways 5A and 8 as construction of a road connecting Princeton and Hope did not begin until 1930. This sentence is very long, with only a single comma for punctuation. Suggest splitting: "...and Spences Bridge in BC. This route included portions of present-day Highways 5A and 8, as construction..." or somesuch.
 * The route is better known by tourists, they claimed... Suggest "was better known", to match the tense of the rest of the sentence.


 * Later years
 * the province was doing their best... Should be "its best", to match "was".
 * where lack of right of way was making upgrades difficult... What exactly does this mean? Was there difficulty purchasing additional land? Can this be clarified?


 * Crowsnest Highway
 * Several local Social Credit Party MLAs expressed dissatisfaction. What is a MLA? it needs expanding on first occurrence.
 * new highway shields... What is a shield in this context?

That is the review of the text completed. One or two minor tweaks needed, but overall the quality of the prose is good. There are several long sentences that could do with a little more punctuation, which you might like to address in due course, but this will not affect the outcome of the GA review. I will move on the reviewing the references next. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Prose issues addressed. Lead restored to lengthier version before I trimmed it. Will be further addressed. -- Acefitt 20:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead should introduce and summarise the main points of the article. It feels a little short for an article of this length, especially as the second paragraph of the lead summarises 23 paragraphs in the article, with the final 4-paragraph section being covered by just half a sentence. I suggest that it needs at least one more paragraph, pulling together some of the salient points from the history sections. I know getting the lead right is one of the most difficult bits of writing a good article, and is not exactly a science, but we should at least try.

The formal bit

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See comments above
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * That is the review completed. There is a large amount of detail in the article and it is generally well-presented. With a small amount of attention, it will meet the criteria for GA. I will put the article on hold. If you need any clarification, do let me know. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there are just a couple of outstanding issues with the refs. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All issues have now been addressed, and I am pleased to award the article GA status. Congratulations! Keep up the good work. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)