Talk:Alberta Highway 63/GA1

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 11:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting a review of this article
I'm starting a review of this article. Just to get my request in early, is there someone here would be involved on behalf of the article? Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be making the improvements required. -- Acefitt 19:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool!  North8000  (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Well-written

 * Passes this criteria. Excellent job of giving both an interesting overview and the details.  North8000  (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

 * Passes this criteria.  North8000  (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

 * Passes this criteria  North8000  (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

 * Passes this criteria  North8000  (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

 * Passes this criteria  North8000  (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

 * Image status: One is public domain, all others have suitable licenses.  North8000  (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Passes this criteria. A second expanded map (of just the highway) would be a much-needed addition.  The current map is fine to show its location, but the road which is the subject of the entire article is just a 1" long line on the map with just 4 dots on it. Many significant things discussed in the article are not shown on the current map.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC) North8000  (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it. The maps take a lot of time which I don't currently have. I made a decision to use the provincial overview style map for some major highways (like this one, Alberta Highway 43, Alberta Highway 36, etc. because they have provincial significance. but a zoomed in style for Alberta Highway 4/Alberta Highway 28 because they're shorter. Either way, the existing map is already more detailed than Interstate 15 in Arizona, Interstate 70 in West Virginia, and other FA's, so it's not a priority. -- Acefitt 18:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussions
I was wondering whether you think that it's worth including that it has become famous on Highway Thru Hell.  North8000  (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Just an FYI (no need to change unless you prefer to) I don't think that "twin" as used here is a word in US English.  North8000  (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of the Highway Thru Hell connection, I'll have a look. As for "twin", it's a universally known and widely used term in Canada, and this is Canadian English. The first instance of it in the lead is wikilinked, and also footnoted for further explanation. Because it's more of a "local" term, I do contemplate getting rid of it in these Alberta highway articles, but it is very convenient and succinct to have a short single word equivalent to "upgrade to a divided expressway/highway". -- Acefitt 07:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that "twin" is a good word because (as I understand it from the article) it is more specific about the approach to widening, i.e. by building a second road. We probably need to add it to US English. Is the term also used for widening in general, including widening by other methods? North8000  (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what other method there is to making a road into a divided highway. I guess if the second carriageway had a wildly different alignment then maybe you wouldn't call it twin... but when a two-lane road is converted to one-way and a second two-lane road is constructed to carry the opposite direction, it's twinning. -- Acefitt 18:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In the US I'd guess only about 10% of expansions are by twinning. More common is complete replacement of the road, or gradual expansions without twinning.  North8000  (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion of the bridge in the fifth paragraph in the "construction" section is very confusing. I read it twice and still couldn't figure it out. I already passed the criteria relevant to this but suggest clarification.  North8000  (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it. -- Acefitt 18:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, this passes as a Wikipedia Good Article
Congratulations, this passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work!  North8000  (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having a look. -- Acefitt 19:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)