Talk:Majura Parkway/GA1

GA Review
NOTE: All bold text added post review to organise my progress and thoughts -- Nbound (talk)

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 12:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


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

I will note up front that some of my comments exceed the literal GA requirements, and they are therefore optional. However, I believe that failing to deal with some minor formatting or consistency issues removes a level of polish that isn't "good", even if the article is considered "Good". There are no disambiguation links in the article, and the external links seem to check out.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are some basic prose and grammar issues to resolve, as well as an issue with the content of the lead -
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are some comments below on citation formatting. I will note that for such a new roadway, I'm surprised that there are no news citations at all. I would expect that this road has been covered in the news at some point. -
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * See the comments on criteria 4 and 5. - Already - has all major sections a road article requires (Infobox, Lead, Route Description, History, Junction List) [eg.Ohio State Route 161]
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * What is covered in the article seems to be neutral. I just have to ask if there have been any protests or criticisms of the roadway? If so, these need to be included to satisfy broadness and neutrality. -
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * This is the biggest issue with the article: the subject matter is not stable. Articles on TV episodes or movies are ineligible for listing as GAs before the episode airs or the movie opens in theatres. The article on a political campaign would not be eligible until the election concludes or the candidate quits the race. An article on a road that's under construction just can not be considered stable for the same reasons. A whole host of issues can appear during construction from accidents or delays. There could be a natural disaster that impacts the project timeline or a change in government that cancels the project. The basic history of the road just has not happened yet, which means the major aspects of the history are lacking in this article. - ❌ - Criterion 5 refers to edit wars and content disputes. The examples listed arent able to be GAs because they cant be broad in coverage (see GA criterion 3) until the event has occured. This article already contains more information in the exact same sections as many -opened- roads which are GAs.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * There is a unique opportunity at work here. Since the road is currently under construction, the history section can be illustrated with construction photos. I'd strongly encourage documenting the roadway through photos over the next several years, something we can't always do with existing roadways. - Already - Will do my best to document construction.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Fixing any and all formatting and prose issues will not fix the biggest concern: the broad coverage and stability issues. Until the road has opened in 2016, or whenever, these concerns can not be satisfied. For now, I'd rate this article as Future-Class, but if forced to assess it on the traditional scale, this is a C.  Imzadi 1979  →   13:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead
 * The lead is a bit short, in part because there isn't much to the article at this stage.
 * It does not summarize the history section as written. There is only one sentence in the lead about the expected completion, yet planning and proposals for the road date back to 1970. -
 * The first paragraph is one long sentence where I'd expect to see a little more substance over 3–5 sentences at least. -
 * "11.5 km (7 mi) north-south parkway" uses the adjective form of the measurement. This should be specified using on in the convert template. Another option is to use  to produce ""11.5-kilometre-long (7 mi) north-south parkway". Either change produces the appropriate grammar. As a side note, I'd expand the converted value to one decimal place of precision to match the input. -

Route description
 * We have a jarring inconsistency in how the article refers to the road in terms of its directional progression. The infobox and junction list table run south-to-north, but the RD prose starts at the north end. I realize that because roads are typically a bidirectional conduit for traffic that we an start at either end, and the decision of which to use is arbitrary, but the article should be consistent with itself. -
 * Given that the road doesn't yet exist, I find the use of present tense jarring as well. It should state that the road will head past gun clubs, etc. because it does not now do those things. It isn't until the second paragraph that we get any sense of the temporal condition of the road. -
 * "AFP" should be spelled out for non-Australian readers. If the name is to be repeated in the article, the abbreviation can be given on the first instance in parentheses and then the abbreviation can be used on subsequent references. -
 * "with a 2.5 m (8.2 ft) wide outside shoulder, and a 1 m (3.3 ft) median shoulder" are more adjectival forms of the measurements. These should be reformatted per the second bullet point above in the lead. -
 * As a side note, there's normally no reason to abbreviate kilometres or metres in prose, so I'd remove the on parameter from the conversions unless they appear in an infobox or table. I do normally abbreviate mph and km/h though. -
 * I'm not sure that the existence of the flyover animations is worth calling out in the prose. The statement comes across as being in the same less-formal tone as "there are photos available", especially when the animations aren't discussed as a subject. -

History " "Roads ACT identified two preferred alignments, which were known as the western and the eastern alignments." I think the italicized word is missing in the article. -
 * LIke the AFP abbreviation above, the NCDC and NCA abbreviations should be spelled out on first usage. Remember, not all readers will be Australian, so we can't assume they'll know these abbreviations. -
 * Are the years included in the titles of those reports? If they aren't, they should not be italicized. -
 * "4 main access roads" should have the number spelled as word. -
 * The lead says this project is to be done in 2016, but the History does not. The lead of an article should not contain any details not in the body of the article. -

Intersections and interchanges
 * There's no need to relink diamond interchange on subsequent use. Ditto LILO. -
 * A personal typography preference, but I either leave unknown distances blank, or I'd use an em dash instead of a hyphen.. -
 * The notes column does not need to relink a road name linked in the Destinations column. -

See also
 * The MOS says that links in a See also section should not be used elsewhere in the article. I haven't found any guidance on whether this includes links in the infobox or not. If the links here are removed because they duplicate the links at the bottom of the infobox, I'd switch the portal links to use portal-inline in a bulleted list. -

References
 * I'm not familiar with the citation style used here. Such things are not in the GA criteria, but using a consistent style provides that level of polish I mentioned above. Personally, I use the citation templates, cite web, cite map, cite report, google maps, etc. -
 * There's overlinking at work here. ACT Government doesn't need to be linked in every reference. -
 * The link in the Google Maps citation should be to the specific area on the map. For roads that are open already, I plot a set of driving directions from one terminus to the other, put that in "hybrid" view, and export the URL. That's the link I use in the citation, but if I need to cite a specific city map, I can do the same without plotting the directions. -