Wikipedia:Peer review/Chickasaw Turnpike/archive1

Chickasaw Turnpike
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've sent this article through various roads WikiProject review processes, such as the mini-PR and A-Class review. It looks like it's on its way to passing as A-Class and has already been listed as a GA. I'd like to see some suggestions for improvement and a check for MOS compliance from Wikipedians not involved in roads next. I'd like this article to go to FA after this peer-review is done.

Thanks, —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, involved in roads I am not, so hopefully this third-party style review will be of some use regardless! Otherwise I can't find a great deal wrong with it! I hope my comments are of some use. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * I know it may sound a little pathetic but I'd add something like "...the US state of Oklahoma." in the lead so the non US folks get it straight away.
 * I know you know U.S. 177 is the same as U.S. Route 177 but perhaps say "... U.S. Route 177 (U.S. 177) and that'll alleviate any possible confusion.
 * Just a question really... "2,000 vehicles per day,[3] or about one per minute." - I can do the math(s) but is the one per minute in any way relevant? Wouldn't most roads experience rush hours and then little to no traffic from, say, 1am to 5am?  I'm sure other road A class/FA's have this but I'm curious as to how relevant it really is.
 * Avoid squashing text between the two photos of the turnpike, per WP:MOS.
 * "cost–benefit " looks like it's got an en-dash, it needs a hyphen.
 * I've corrected some of these concerns. I don't think that the U.S. Route/U.S. issue is severe enough to warrant a parenthetical, considering that road signs will typically abbreviate in the same way (several road signs throughout the U.S. read "US-177" or "US 177") and I believe they're similar enough most non-U.S. people will be able to realize they're the same road. Also, on the dash issue, I was of the impression that cost–benefit was a "disjunctive" compound, as in "cost versus benefit", so an en dash was required per WP:MOSDASH. I'm not sure as to the image issue; I'll have someone with a different resolution eyeball it and attempt to fix it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)