Talk:Majura Parkway/GA2

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 11:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to review this. I generally check all the sources first, with attention to making sure that the information present in the article can be verified to them. This will take a day or so, at which point I should have a comprehensive set of actions and can make a decision on whether to pass, fail, or hold.


 * Thanks for taking the review. Ill tick everything off as I believe its completed, but if anything needs further work, just let me know :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

General

 * No disambigs - good
 * - No action required


 * No dead refs - good
 * - No action required


 * As I stated on WT:GAN, no stability problems, no edit wars
 * - No action required


 * You could do with a map of the project - it'll convey information better than prose for some of the article. I can probably knock one up in OpenStreetMap for you if you like.
 * I would appreciate that, the current alignment of the construction has been improved since I last checked on OSM. If you wish to base it off that, where the road crosses Morshead Drive, near its southern end requires both carriageways being moved just to the left (west) of the intersection it is currently shown as crossing over.
 * Okay, the map is up at File:Majura Parkway.jpg. I'll leave it up to you to use as appropriate. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * - Added File:MajuraParkwayMap.svg instead -- Nbound (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to adjust sizing/positioning if required -- Nbound (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

 * Take out the blank fields in the infobox.


 * You're currently writing things in the future tense (ie: "The Majura Parkway will be a"). Try writing it in the present tense instead (ie: "The Majura Parkway is a proposed"). The main advantage of doing this is when the road opens, the article doesn't need to be changed as much.


 * Australian Capital Territory is wikilinked twice. You should drop the second wikilink and move (ACT) up to the first definition of it, then use ACT after that


 * I'll come back to rest of the lead later.

Route description

 * The first paragraph could do with being split up a bit. I wonder if it's worth giving an overall summary of the route first, and then spend a number of paragraphs outlining specifics. I probably wouldn't include anything that's either not notable enough to have an article now, or you think should have one.
 * - Have removed what I believe to be extraneous, also have reworded a little and split into sections that are easier to digest.


 * You don't need four references to cite one paragraph. Take the individual facts from each source, and attribute them to the sentence or sentences that are supported by them.
 * - Removed unneeded refs


 * I would afford more importance to the fact the road replaces the Majura Road, as it's probably (IMHO) the most important thing about the article. People can see where the road is on a map; a WP article will tell them why it's there.
 * - As part of the RD fix-up above I focused more on Majura Road and the reasons for replacement.

More later...... Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   11:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me know if any of the above requires any further work - Nbound (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There's still some future tense in the opening paragraph.
 * I thought you only wanted the lead in present tense? Im not sure it is appropriate to have the RD as if the road was already built. Thoughts?


 * The article links to Canberra Airport but the source says "Canberra International Airport".
 * Canberra Airport is the current name of Canberra International Airport. They removed the international bit because there isnt any international flights to/from there except occasionally those of visiting and departing political figures. (Its the only airport in Canberra aswell).


 * The two SMEC sources could do with page numbers, to make it easier to find what is verified where.
 * - No action required (It is already listed in the ref (the page numbers are like 12-4, 3-5, 7-2 - these dont depict a series of pages, but are the pages as described by their numbering system).

History

 * The second sentence has the word "Further" in it twice.


 * The sentence about the eastern alignment being scrapped is glossed over. I'll have a look for news sources to see if they discuss it in more depth.


 * Can you find a link for the Canberra Times sources?
 * No, they are stored on a private (non-public access) server.


 * The first sentence in the third paragraph could probably do with being split up.
 * - Used semi-colon to provide appropriate pause, let me know if wish more to be done.

Intersections and interchanges

 * The "km" and "mile" boxes seem redundant - they don't tell us anything that can't be referred to from anywhere else
 * You cant remove them AFAIK. I could probably figure out approx distances, but I figured that would be WP:SYN.

I'm going off to look for some news sources, I'll comment more when I get them. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   16:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)