Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Great Eastern Highway

Great Eastern Highway
review
 * Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: Great Eastern Highway is the first section of the major road link between Perth and Adelaide, and part of Australia's National Highway system. The article on the 590-kilometre-long (370 mi) highway is quite substantial, has recently passed its GA nomination, and is the next article I would like to take to FAC. It is also the first High-importance AURD article to be nominated for A-class.


 * Nominated by: Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First comment occurred: 04:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872
Comments:
 * I will review this article.  Dough 48  72  04:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) In the lead, why is "Great Eastern Highway" italicized?
 * Unitalicized. I don't remember exactly what I was thinking when I used italics, but after checking the MOS, there's no need for italics. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "with the whole highway sealed by 1953", what does it mean for the highway to be "sealed"?
 * Linked sealed to chipseal - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "in Perth's east" sounds awkward, I would suggest changing this to "the eastern part of Perth".
 * Changed. Perhaps not the best wording, but I can't think of anything better at the moment. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) In the lead and infobox you mention part of the Great Eastern Highway is Alternate National Route 94. You should mention it again in the second paragraph of the route description when you are discussing the allocation of the highway.
 * Added - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) What is a "lopped ramp"? Is this supposed to be "looped ramp"?
 * Fixed typo - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) In many places, you refer to it as "Great Eastern Highway". Shouldn't you refer to it as "the Great Eastern Highway"?
 * I don't think it's actually required, as its not part of the road name. And I've been told in previous reviews to be consistent with using or not using the direct article (the) when mentioning highways. Leaving it out for all roads and highways is less awkward than putting it in all for all of them. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "three point five kilometres (2.2 mi) east" sounds awkward, it should be "3.5 kilometers (2.2 mi) east".
 * Changed. Seems convert/spell doesn't spell 3+1/2|km as "three and a half kilometres". - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "lonely scrubland" does not sound right. I would get rid of the word lonely here.
 * Removed - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it just speculation that a convict road was built in the 1860s or is it a known fact?
 * Ref #17 ("Gt Eastern Highway's secret" video) says it was built in 1867, but Ref #16 ("Convicts' early roadworks unearthed") says "Thought to have been built by convicts in 1867, the road gives an insight into WA's convict history and early infrastructure" and Ref #19 (State Heritage Office "Convict road unearthed") says it was 145 years old, ie 1867, but later on says "Initial indications showed that the road was likely to have been constructed by convict labour in 1867". - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, seeing the use of italics in the history.
 * Removed as per #1 - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The sentence "In 1994, the federal government approved a $43.9 million project to upgrade substandard section between Northam and Southern Cross." has verb agreement issues.
 * Adjusted - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) In the Bypasses section, I would remove the link to Australian dollar as it is of little value and is not used elsewhere in the article.
 * Removed - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Why are the bridges over the Helena and Avon rivers included in the Major intersections? Generally only bridges with articles are included. Also the formatting for both bridge crossings is inconsistent.  Dough  48  72  04:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS:RJL lists "major water bodies" as items to include, so they are included based on the notability and significance of the rivers. I change the second one to also use Jctbridge. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Concerns addressed.  Dough 48  72  01:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Review / Image review by Admrboltz
References
 * Ref 18 (Gt Eastern Highway's secret (info)) doesn't seem to work for me.
 * Then it's probably region-locked to Australia, because it is working for me - Evad37 &#91;talk] 17:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your map references should have scales indicated.
 * Added the scale for Ref 58 (Plan for the Metropolitan Region). The others don't specify a scale in numbers, they just have scale bars - presumably because with computer files, the scale varies based on your zoom level, or the paper size you print it out on. Same with Google maps, they don't have a fixed scale. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Its something and I have discussed on IRC lately. You can either do "Scale not given" for your maps that just have the bar or either measure your screen with the pdf at 100% resolution or print the legend at 100% resolution then work out the scale fraction from there. Google Maps does not need a scale defined. ( - Might be worth noting on the Google Maps/Bing Maps/Yahoo Maps template documentation that scale is not needed.) --  Admr  Boltz  06:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing I was mentioned here, I'll just briefly comment. Of the two citation styles (Chicago Manual of Style, MLA) I used in my college classes this past semester, neither gave specific citation formats for maps. However, when looking up formats, various university websites did give citation formats for maps in Chicago, APA and MLA, and in all cases I found, "Scale not given" or a scale was listed for fixed maps. For dynamic scaled maps, like Google, etc, nothing was indicated. (As for the Google/Bing/Yahoo templates, they can't be given a scale anyway.)  Imzadi 1979   →   06:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Overlinking in your references (only the first instance of a newspaper needs to be linked, etc)
 * Fixed - Evad37 &#91;talk] 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have CS1 errors - these are mostly the use of seperate Month and Year fields (should use a unified date field) or coauthors.
 * Fixed - Evad37 &#91;talk] 04:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Prose
 * "a river crossing into Perth's CBD (central business district)" - typically abbreviations are spelt-out first then put into after > Perth's Central Business District (CBD).
 * Changed - Evad37 &#91;talk] 14:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Typically, but not always, speed limits are left out of USRD articles as its a bit trivial and borders on Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide.
 * WP:NOTEVERYTHING says "Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight". I think that including a brief mention, in general terms, of the main speed limit zones is useful encyclopaedic information, and approriately weighted to the size of the article. It allows readers to see which parts are low speed/medium speed/high speed – without listing every single sections speed limit and each change point. (Also, lots of stuff in road articles comes somewhat close to one or more of the WP:NOT examples – RJLs, traffic volumes, dual/single carriagway, etc – but are still included, with an appropriate level of detail) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 14:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --  Admr Boltz  14:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * With units under 10 (e.g. 2.1 km, etc), you should be using convert/spell and not convert, which will spell out the units.
 * Dough asked for it the other way above, as spelling out numbers with decimal points is a bit awkward - Evad37 &#91;talk] 17:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though works though... though its still awkward. I won't hold you to either way at this point. --  Admr  Boltz  17:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "where the highway encounters a steep[note 1]" - why is this a foot note and not just in the prose?
 * Integrated into prose. I originally put it in as a footnote because it is more of a technical detail, and I thought the prose flowed better that way. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 14:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Images
 * File:Great Eastern Highway route map.png - shouldn't this be tagged as Cc-by-3.0-au, which is the source data license?
 * The source licence only requires attribution, not sharing alike (CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA) - Evad37 &#91;talk]
 * File:Start Of Great Eastern Highway in Kalgoorlie.JPG - does this image really help the article out, it is of rather poor quality.
 * Changed to File:Coolgardie High Street.jpg (awaiting flickr review on Commons) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 17:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Orange Route (Perth-Adelaide National Highway).png - The source data is Cc-by-sa-2.0, which should be the license on this image as well.
 * Changed - Evad37 &#91;talk] 17:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, looks good. --  Admr Boltz  16:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, I'll be replying over the next couple of days - Evad37 &#91;talk] 17:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support --  Admr Boltz  00:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I can take the third review. --Rschen7754 11:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Infobox
 * Opened 	1860s - source?
 * Added a ref from the Convict-era road section - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Major settlements" wide label makes the second column too narrow on small screens. Is there anything that can be done about this?
 * I had a look at the difference between "Major settlements" and just "Major", and there's really not much in it. On Windows 7, regardless of window size, Firefox showed no difference, and Chrome and IE only had a 12 pixel difference in width. Everything that is currently going onto two lines would still be on two lines. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * RJL
 * The table seems unusually crowded and dense. For example, do we need "Traffic light controlled intersection"? Also, is it possible to use abbreviations for "State Route"?
 * Removed "Traffic light controlled intersection" notes. There are no official or commonly used abbreviations, and Wikipedia shouldn't be inventing abbreviations, so we are stuck with the unabbreviated form. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Check capitalization in the notes section - subsequent clauses should not be capitalized
 * Adjusted - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is "T Junction" a proper noun?
 * Adjusted - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Usually we don't cite Google Maps in the table unless we're using that for the mileages. Not a deal-breaker, but it might help make the table header less cluttered.
 * Removed (but if verification of the column contents is requested later, I'll put it or another source back) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * References
 * LATE CITY should be titlecased, at least, same with CITY FINAL. --Rschen7754 11:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay - my time for HWY is about to decrease significantly, but I'll try and get this done...


 * Lead
 * majority of National Highway 94 - link NH 94?
 * Done - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Route description
 * Sections are Great Eastern Highway are - ?
 * Fixed - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * diamond interchange - should probably be linked
 * Done - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * which after 1.2 kilometres (0.75 mi), has a sharp 90 degree turn to the north - no comma after the measurement
 * Done - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What is a shopping precinct?
 * Changed to commercial area - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * though it is commonly described as travelling "up Greenmount" - by who?
 * The source (State Heritage Office "Greenmount Hill") doesn't specify, all it says is "Even today, the Great Eastern Highway, at present the main route to the Eastern States, is said to travel 'up Greenmount', even though the road runs north of the actual hill." - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Along the way - comma
 * Done - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What is a reverse curve?
 * Wikilinked - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What is remnant vegetation?
 * Remnant is remnant, clarified that vegetation is native vegetation, linked to native plant. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * History
 * The use of "whilst" seems odd.
 * Removed per point below - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That entire subsection seems a bit off; perhaps arranging the sentences in a different order might be helpful. I had to reread it a few times because the explanation came too far after the facts.
 * Rearranged/copyedited - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * having it gazetting - gazetted?
 * Fixed - Evad37 &#91;talk] 15:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * principle -> principal
 * Fixed - Evad37 &#91;talk] 15:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Check your nonbreaking spaces - should be between 44 and vehicles, for example, and $1.3 million.
 * Done - Evad37 &#91;talk] 15:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Future
 * long term -> long-term?
 * Done - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Environmental Protection Authority - link?
 * Done - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What is a forward works program? --Rschen7754 05:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Presumably scheduled future works. The news story uses the term without explaining it, and the only reference on Main Roads' website is in their annual reports' description of the executive team – "... His Directorate is responsible for contributing to the development, management and preparation of the budget and programming activities. This includes the annual budget and forward works program,..." - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Review now completed. --Rschen7754 06:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 23:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Source 5: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 7: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 8: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 11: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 19: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 20: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 26: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 27: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 32: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 33: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 41: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 44: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 47: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 53: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 55: Good on V and CP.
 * Source 62: scheduled/was to begin, because the article was written before the scheduled beginning.
 * Added a 2007 source that specifies January 2001 - Evad37 &#91;talk] 06:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Source 63: will AGF here as it's in the abstract.
 * Source 72: was to begin, because the article was written before the scheduled planning.
 * Adjusted wording - Evad37 &#91;talk] 06:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Source 73: "recent cost analysis had been undertaken" a bit too close to the source. Same with "is a federal government responsibility."
 * Adjusted wording - Evad37 &#91;talk] 06:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Spotcheck done. --Rschen7754 02:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)