Talk:Deerfoot Trail/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 11:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article, making notes as I go, and leaving the lead until the end. Can I suggest that you mark issues that have been addressed with comments and /or 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) 11:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Route Description

 * Overview
 * From its split with Highway 2A (Macleod Trail) near the hamlet of De Winton, Suggest "..near the hamlet of De Winton in the south,"
 * ✅ -- Acefitt 20:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Alberta Transportation has signed a contract... A little more info about Alberta Transportation would be helpful. Are they responsible for all roads / this road?
 * ✅. Addressed. -- Acefitt 20:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * but it is desirable for the city to avoid the significant maintenance and rehabilitation costs have the road remain under provincial control This doesn't quite make sense. It needs a few more words to link the two halves together.
 * ✅. Clarified. -- Acefitt 20:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * South Calgary
 * named after a Sikiska elder. Is this correct? The wiki article suggests Siksika. Suggest " named after an elder of the Siksika people (?nation) " with a wikilink to Siksika.
 * ✅ -- Acefitt 20:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Traffic and collisions
 * The excessive volume on Deerfoot Trail Suggest "The excessive volume of traffic on Deerfoot Trail"
 * ✅ -- Acefitt 20:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

History

 * Predecessor highways
 * to allow construction of a new 14,000 ft (4,300 m) runway All previous data has used metric (imperial), rather than imperial (metric). Suggest swapping the order of this one for consistency.
 * Runway length is always given in feet in Canada, never in metres. -- Acefitt 06:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Completion
 * Construction of the $70 million 6.5 km (4.0 mi) extension took more than two years, described as "badly needed" by mayor Ralph Klein The second sub-phrase needs linking to the first. Suggest "...two years, and was described..." or somewuch.
 * Plans to add a third level flyover... This sentence rambles on and on, with little punctuation. Suggest splitting into two.
 * before alternating right of way with through traffic I cannot understand what this means. Can it be clarified?
 * modified to support significantly higher traffic levels via the construction of elevated directional ramps Suggest replacing "via" with "by", as via does not work with "the construction".
 * ✅. All addressed. -- Acefitt 07:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Future

 * ok


 * Lead
 * The lead should introduce and summarise the main points of the article. As written, it serves to do this.

Generally, this article is well written for flow and grammar. There are a few sentences that would benefit from a little extra punctuation, but this will not prevent it reaching GA.

I will be working my way through the references next. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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:

I have now finished my review. In view of the quick response to issues so far, I will only put this on hold if there is no further movement. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I took care of everything, thanks for having a look. -- Acefitt 07:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that all of the issues raised have been addressed. Thanks for the quick response to the review, despite the fact that the article had been in the GA queue for a very long time. I am pleased to award the article GA status. Congratulations on a job well done. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)