Talk:Mitchell Freeway/GA1

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

Reviewer: HueSatLum (talk · contribs) 02:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If I'm wrong about any changes, let me know. I will complete the review sometime within the next few days.
 * Thanks for starting this review. I've made most of the suggested changes below. - Evad37 (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good.
 * Lead


 * History
 * "controlled access highway" → "controlled-access highway".


 * Per MOS:NUM, "forty three thousand sand drains" → "43,000 drains"


 * "Narrows interchange" → "Narrows Interchange"


 * What does "CBD" stand for?
 * ✅ (central business district)


 * The first occurrence of "median strip" should be linked to Central reservation.


 * Add convert for "3 km" and "4 km".


 * "Simon O'Brien" should be linked to Simon O'Brien (politician).


 * "Alannah McTiernan" should be linked to Alannah MacTiernan


 * Future works
 * "$30m" → "$30 million"


 * "The resulting congestion in the afternoon traffic peak increases the chances of rear-end crashes as well as driver frustration." should not be in present tense.
 * about this one... past tense (ie "... increased ...") doesn't seem appropriate as this applies the current situation, and will do so until construction is completed. I'll have a go at rewording/fixing this up later, or let me know if you have any ideas.
 * You're right, my apologies.


 * Route description
 * Is the "shared pedestrian and bicycle path" a Segregated cycle facility? If so, it should be linked there.
 * ✅ (linked to Segregated cycle facility)


 * "Located just north of the Narrows Bridge, on the eastern edge of Kings Park, is the Narrows Interchange" → "The Narrows Interchange is located just north of the Narrows Bridge, on the eastern edge of Kings Park."

Looks good
 * Exits and interchanges


 * References
 * Ref #17 is a dead link.
 * ✅: Marked as dead link per WP:LINKROT. Also added another ref.


 * Ref #2 lacks an accessdate.


 * 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):
 * Good following changes above.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Properly sourced from reliable sources
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Very detailed route description
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutral, not a very contriversial topic
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Very stable
 * 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):
 * Good historic images
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is very informative and well-written. Nice job! ⋘ HueSatLum  ? &thinsp; ❢ ⋙ 20:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)