Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review/A1 (Croatia)

A1 (Croatia)
I would like to improve this article sufficiently for GAN at least. Every comment and suggestion is welcome! Thanks--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC) So far, this looks like a decent article. For a good example of what a road article should look like, see Interstate 70 in Colorado.  Dough 48  72  01:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * 1) The infobox does not make it clear what direction the route runs. Instead of "from" and "to", the field should indicate the direction of the terminus.
 * 2) References are not needed in the lead unless that information is unique to the lead. The lead is supposed to be a brief summary of the article; the current lead appears to have too much detail. ❌ - WP:LEADCITE specifies the opposite regarding the references. As far as level of detail is concerned, I'll try to squeeze something out yet.
 * 3) LEADCITE says that "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". Per this quote, most of the information in the lead is already cited elsewhere and is redundant to be cited again in the lead. The only passages in the lead that need citations are unique information that is likely to be challenged.  Dough  48  72  16:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) That's right, a balance need be struck, therefore the lead shall have far less refs than the main text. WP:LEAD also says that the lead should be able to stand on its own and conform to WP:VERIFY. I expect more opinions on this and as the guidelines are not that precise I propose that changes if any, are made later on.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)  I'll trim some details and references from the lead as soon as the copyedit is complete.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)  Trimmed down some details, text and references.
 * 5) The "Route" section should be named "Route description" per WP:HWY.
 * 6) "A1 Motorway" should not be bolded at the beginning of the Route section.
 * 7) The article seems to have too many photos. Try to only select a few photos for the article and vary the alignment between left and right. ❌ As this layout is used for all motorways in Croatia, I am reluctant to change it. However, I shall seek additional opinions on this issue and then decide what to do.
 * 8) Layout has some suggestions on what to do with a surplus amount of images. If all the images in the article are available on Commons, then the link to Commons at the bottom of the page can provide an outlet for a place for the reader to see extra images of the road that are not available in the article.  Dough  48  72  16:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  Will address the image alignment issue (possibly number of images too) as soon as GOCE copyediting that in currently in progress gets done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)  Rearranged the images, reduced their number!
 * 10) The route description of an article usually mentions junctions with other roads as well as the cities it serves. In addition, the route description should describe the route in the same directional progression as the infobox and junction list, which I assume is from north to south.
 * 11) I do not think the article needs a table of the bridges and tunnels along the route, as this information is discriminate. ❌ The route is distinguished by high ratio of structure length to overall length and this serves to convey details regarding that particular claim.
 * 12) I believe it is okay for the prose to mention the lengths of the longest bridges and tunnel, but a statistical count of this is not necessary. I have not seen any other road articles that have had a table of bridges and tunnels.  Dough  48  72  16:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) I believe that the table adds to the article, it takes nothing away from the article and does not overwhelm the readers. The fact that no other road article has such statistic is irrelevant - a FA-class article may have a section on "Impact upon culture" and it would be unusual but fine if properly referenced (M62 motorway).--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) In the exit list, mentioning the lengths of bridges and tunnels is not necessary. In addition, some of the notes in the list are superfluous to the prose. For the 1st part of the comment: ❌ - the structures listed are distinguished by their length (1000m+ tunnels, 300m+ bridges & 500m+ viaducts) hence the information is conveyed. For the 2nd part of the comment: Agreed, will trim down unnecessary notes.  RJL Notes revised.
 * 15) The lengths of the bridges and tunnels in the exit list is redundant to what is already mentioned in the prose about these structures.  Dough  48  72  16:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) The missing kilometerposts in the exit list should be added if known. Agreed. I'll look them up.  There are now chainages for most of the rest areas specified. A couple of those are still missing, but I'll see if I can find a reliable source for those and add them later on.
 * 17) The colored header at the top of the exit list needs to be removed to comply with WP:RJL. ❌ - WP:RJL does not specify header color, rather it permits optional use of colors additional to those specified for the RJL table. Besides, a similar arrangement is specified by the WP:RJL itself for UK motorways, so I feel this instance of colored header is permitted and justified.
 * 18) At RJL, the main purpose of colors is to mark the end of concurrencies as well as closed or partial access interchanges. The headers in the junction list are only specified for the UK and are not supposed to be used in any other jurisdiction, including Croatia.  Dough  48  72  16:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) WP:RJL contains nothing supporting the exclusivity of colored header use for UK roads. WP:RJL also explicitly says that use of colored backgrounds in the table is optional. Since UK tables use a blue background (used as the background color of UK motorways traffic signs) green was selected for Croatian motorways (using the same reasoning).--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) The colored backgrounds referenced in RJL are not for the overall background based on the color of the guide signs, but for concurrencies and closed/partial access interchanges, with a color key to be included.  Dough  48  72  23:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Reference 65 should be converted into a footnote. ❌ Since WP:FOOT does not distinguish the two, I don't see any reason to separate them per se. If and when there are more sets of coordinates in the article, a "List of coordinates" may be created to take those out of the references and into a separate list.

Thanks for your comments and the link (IS 70 Colorado), this is definitely helpful.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for the feedback. The ❌ tags do not mean to say that the idea is absurd or out of the question, just that I'd like to have few more opinions in before I change anything. Or maybe nothing will change after all. Thanks again!--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)