Talk:Puerto Rico Highway 10/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Imzadi  1979   →  05:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I'm starting a review, please check back shortly for the full review.  Imzadi  1979   →  05:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 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) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Project-related comments
 * Too many junctions in the infobox. WP:USRD/STDS say no more than 10, and there are 14.
 * >>>>>>>>>>>FIXED. There are now only 10. Mercy11 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The junctions are ordered in north–south order in the infobox, but the Route description is written south–north order, per project standards. One of these is correct and one is not. Which direction does DTOP run the distance posting? This is more important if they post km posts on the sides of the road, but the article should follow the direction of the posting even if its only internal to a log.
 * >>>>>>>>>>>FIXED. EVERYTHING now reads South to North. Mercy11 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Writing quality
 * First sentence has two problems. "Puerto Rico Highway 10 is the main highway in Puerto Rico that connects the cities of Ponce and Arecibo."
 * In the rest of the article, you've used the PR-# abbreviation format. It should be added to the lead sentence so it starts: "Puerto Rico Highway 10 (PR-10) is ..." Note that the abbreviation is in bold, but the parentheses are not.
 * >>>>>>>>>>>FIXED. The suggested PR-10 is now there. Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Saying this is "the main highways in Puerto Rico that connects the cities of Ponce and Arecibo" is not correct. It might be a primary highway, but it is not the one and only main highway on the whole island, is it?
 * >>>>>>>>>>>FIXED. The suggested primary highway is now there. Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Except for a 1-mile stretch of road between km 13.45 and km 15.10, ..." You've mixed your measuring systems. Decide if PR highways are measured and signed in metric or in Imperial, and list that measurement first with a conversion to the second. (The exception is mileposts and their kin, which aren't converted.) If the km 13.45 is a kilometerpost, I would unabbreviate it and state that part as "between distance posts 13.45 and 15.10 km" or "Except for a stretch of road around 13.45–15.10 km" or something else.
 * >>>>>>>>>>>FIXED. The suggested wording is now there. Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "The stretch from Ponce to Adjuntas was thus built under the Spanish government, i.e., before 1898. The rest of the route (i.e., Adjuntas to Arecibo) was built after the Americans took over in 1898." Reword for flow. Something like: "The stretch from Ponce to Adjuntas was built under the Spanish government. The remainder of the route to Arecibo was built after the Americans took over in 1898."
 * >>>>>>>>>>>FIXED. The suggested re-wording has been incorporated now. Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "In addition, it was also necessary to drive through the congested downtown areas of the various town and villages .." The workds "In addition" are superfluous.
 * >>>>>>>>>>>FIXED. Agree. And the extra words were removed. Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Despite these drawbacks, however, the road was heavily used for many decades. However, as traffic on this road increased in the 1950s and 1960s, the road started to show its limits." Drop the first "however" as superfluous, which also avoids the repetition.
 * >>>>>>>>>>>FIXED. Agree. As before, these extra words were also removed. Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "The road runs mostly parallel to PR-123 and, for the area that is still under construction .." The word "and" should be after the comma, not before.
 * >>>>>>>>>>>FIXED. Absolutely! Comma has been placed in teh right location. Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "The still-under-construction stretch ..." Try "The incomplete stretch ..." to remove awkward wordiness.
 * >>>>>>>>>>>FIXED. Done as was recommended. Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I could continue to detail every last item of poor quality writing in the article, but suffice it to say that the article needs a third-party to copy edit it completely.
 * OK, And what third party does the necessary copy-editing? Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * MOS
 * Per WP:LAYOUT, compliance with which is required under the GA criteria, the "See also" section should be listed before the references, and nothing should be listed in the section if it is already linked in the body of the article.
 * >>>>>>>>> ADDRESSED. There is no "See also" section, so this is a non-issue/mute point. Mercy11 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead does not summarize the whole article. There is no history summarized in the lead.
 * >>>>>>>>> ADDRESSED. History is now part of the lead section. Mercy11 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is information in the lead that is not in the body of the article. (The estimated completed construction cost should be included a Future section.)
 * >>>>>>>>> ADDRESSED. This info is now in the suggested FUTURE section whcih was also diligently created in due time. Mercy11 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Events impacting the road in the future, like planned construction, should be separated into a future section, and integrated into the history as they happen.
 * >>>>>>>>> ADDRESSED. This is already starting to occur in a way. An event regarding the possible addition of safety nets (to guard against rock-falling) was added to the article itself when it occurred. Mercy11 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Other MOS concerns:
 * The junction list is not in table format. Bulleted lists are only for use in "state-detail" articles that are split from a larger, national highway. Since this is a highway in a single territory, it should have the full table-format junction list.
 * >>>>>>>>> ADDRESSED. A junction list (albeit somewhat confusing as I have stated elsewhere) has since been added in table form. Mercy11 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * References
 * The references, as listed in the article, are missing pieces of information. While it is not required to use the citation templates, they are a very handy tool to ensure formatting consistency
 * >>>>>>>>> FIXED. This matter has been fixed as suggested. Mercy11 (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Spanish-language sources should indicate that they are in Spanish, and they should include an English translation of the title.
 * >>>>>>>>> FIXED. English translations of titles have been provided in each case. Mercy11 (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Key minimum information for each source should be: author (if known), article title/webpage name, publication title (newspaper, magazine, book, website name), publisher (for sources that aren't newspapers or magazines), publication city/location (if known or not part of the newspaper's name), page numbers or map section numbers, publication date and accessdate date for any sources online. Some sources won't have all of these data, but every piece of data known should be provided.
 * >>>>>>>>> DONE. The references now have the minimum information. Mercy11 (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If the reference is formatted by hand, it should not be formatted in such a way that the full reference is given as the text of a link.
 * >>>>>>>>> ADDRESSED. This matter has been fixed as suggested. Mercy11 (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If a source is a PDF, that should be indicated. (This is done in cite web and other templates with )
 * >>>>>>>>> RESOLVED. PDF references are now per guidelines. Mercy11 (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Only book, magazine, newspaper or website titles should be rendered in italics. Titles of articles and specific web pages on a site should be in quotation marks.
 * >>>>>>>>> DONE. This was done several weeks ago. I just overlooked docuemnting it then. Mercy11 (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A pair of footnotes numbered 4 and 5 are to the same source and ideally should be combined together using named references.
 * >>>>>>>>> FIXED. This was done several weeks ago. Mercy11 (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The same goes for footnotes 9 and 10.
 * >>>>>>>>> FIXED. Also done together with the previous one. Mercy11 (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Broad coverage
 * Because the junction list is not in tabular form, the article is missing a major aspect, and thus the article is not broad in its coverage.
 * The article discusses that the roadway is being reconstructed. It barely discusses why, and what is mentioned is not referenced.


 * Images
 * File:PR-123 Ponce-Adjuntas Rd circa 1920.jpg probably should be re-tagged as public domain, and not a Creative Commons license. The uploader of the photo to Flickr can't assert a license over a photo that is in the public domain. The date on the photo description should be changed to "ca. 1920, uploaded 15 October 2007" or something similar. The author should be changed, unless "Oquendo" was around in 1920 to have taken the photo.
 * >>>>>>>>>>>> PENDING. Since it has been suggested the pic be sent to teh photo lab, why not wait till they have cleaned up the watermark and then work on retagging as PD, if that is still recommended. Right? Mercy11 (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the photo be sent over to the wizards at WP:GL to see if they can remove the watermarks and straighten the image.
 * >>>>>>>>>>>> DONE. See HERE. Mercy11 (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me, is the section of roadway shown in the 1920 either now part of PR-10, or was it part of PR-10 at some point? Is it now part of PR-123, or just a former part of PR-10? From the caption, we're lead to believe that it was already a former section of PR-123 in ca. 1920, which would surprise me a bit because Wisconsin and Michigan were the first states in the US, and first jurisdictions in the world to sign their roadways with highway marker signs in 1918–19.
 * >>>>>>>>>>>> ADDRESSED BEFORE. We went over this in a great amount of detail back and forth already in various iterations and I beieve it was adressed to the reviewer's satisfaction already. Mercy11 (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Normally when I do a GA review, there are only minor issues to fix before an article can pass to GA status. In that case, I put the article on hold. In this case, it is my opinion that too much work needs to be done to meet the GA criteria. While the project-specific concerns and the section of the MOS on road junction lists are technically not required under the GA criteria, the junction list's format does affect the coverage of the article. The inconsistency of direction between the Route description and the two junction lists impacts the quality of the layout and appearance of the article.
 * >>>>>>>>>>>> ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. Junction lists have been merged as required. Route descriptions all now read South to North. Project specific concerns and MOS/Jct lists, while "technically not required under the GA criteria," were also covered to satisfy whatever. Seems to me this article can now be put on "B".

It is my opinion that this article does not merit promotion to GA status, and that the standard seven-day hold period will be insufficient address the concerns raised here and the further research needed for the article. I am failing the article. Please fix the above before renomination.  Imzadi  1979   →  06:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * '''>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want a GA status, let's just take it out of "C". GA is too difficult to attain. Mercy11 (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)