Template:Did you know nominations/Guildford Road

Guildford Road

 * ... that the name Great Eastern Highway was coined in 1933 to describe Guildford Road, but was actually used for the road on the other side of Perth's Swan River?
 * ALT1:... that in November 1934, both Guildford Road and a road on the other side of Perth's Swan River were proposed to be renamed Great Eastern Highway?
 * Reviewed: A-class Melbourne tram

Created by Evad37 (talk). Self nominated at 01:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, properly cited to the Western Australian, so no issues there. The hooks are a little long, not directly breaching the rules but they just seem to struggle to say a fact concisely. Does the road have any notable landmarks on it? If so, a hook outlining them would work. Ritchie333   (talk)   (cont)   17:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I could probably dig up some more info on the Mount Lawley Subway, and from memory there were a couple of heritage sites in Maylands, but how about just making the hook more concise:
 * ALT2:... that the name Great Eastern Highway was originally coined to describe Guildford Road?
 * - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How about ALT3:... that Guildford Road in Perth, Western Australia was originally supposed to be called the Great Eastern Highway? Ritchie333   (talk)   (cont)   10:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think "originally" is accurate, as the road dates back to circa 1830, while the name 'Great Eastern Highway' was coined 100 years later... maybe ALT4:... that Guildford Road in Perth, Western Australia was supposed to be called the Great Eastern Highway? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 10:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Yes, that looks good to me, so this is now good to go. Ritchie333   (talk)   (cont)   11:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Do we need to address expand section first? --PFHLai (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the tag and moved it to the relevant subsection, but is not needing expansion really a DYK criteria? If it was, then only B-class and above articles would be eligible for DYK. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 05:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In general, we don't use articles that are tagged for problems or appear to be incomplete / work in progress. It's okay to be thin, but glaring holes need to be avoided. Shall we wait for the history since 1935, or not? --PFHLai (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have expanded slightly with the most significant change made since 1935. So now the coverage is thin, but there, and the tag is gone. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 06:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)