Talk:Portage Glacier Highway/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 00:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

 I will put the article on hold for fixes to be made.  Dough 48  72  00:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I do not like the structure of the route description in referring to parts of the road such as the first part, second part, etc. This should be reworded.
 * ✅ I believe this is fixed.
 * There are a lot of sentences with "this stretch". Can some other words be used for some of these?  Dough 48  72  20:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think
 * The headers in the route description should be fixed. Either add a header for the section west of the Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel or remove the headers completely. I would recommend the latter.
 * Is it possible for a header to be added to the first section of the Route description?  Dough 48  72  20:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There should not be bolding in the route description.
 * "The traffic count on the Portage Glacier Highway is somewhat high for a road in Alaska, with the 2010 traffic count for the Anton Anderson Tunnel being at 234,738 vehicles", high compared to what? I would suggest rewording to remove the comparison that it is high.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References should not be in the lead unless the information is unique there.
 * ✅ unnecessary reference removed.
 * Reference 1 is a dead link.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Can some details about the physical surroundings be mentioned in the lead?
 * Can some more historical information be added to the lead?
 * I would suggest moving the information about the Intermodal Connector Route and National Highway System to the Route description.
 * I would suggest moving the Tolls section to before the History.
 * 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:
 * 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 believe the issues have been resolved. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that all new issues have been fixed. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 01:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * After some fixes I made myself, I will pass the article.  Dough 48  72  01:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)