Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: HueSatLum (talk · contribs) 02:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm wrong about any changes, let me know. I will complete the review sometime within the next few days.

Thanks for starting this review. I've made most of the suggested changes below. - Evad37 (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Looks good.

History

• "controlled access highway" → "controlled-access highway".

 Done

• Per MOS:NUM, "forty three thousand sand drains" → "43,000 drains"

 Done

• "Narrows interchange" → "Narrows Interchange"

 Done

• What does "CBD" stand for?

 Done (central business district)

• The first occurrence of "median strip" should be linked to Central reservation.

 Done

• Add {{convert}} for "3 km" and "4 km".

 Done

• "Simon O'Brien" should be linked to Simon O'Brien (politician).

 Done

• "Alannah McTiernan" should be linked to Alannah MacTiernan

 Done

Future works

• "$30m" → "$30 million"

 Done

• "The resulting congestion in the afternoon traffic peak increases the chances of rear-end crashes as well as driver frustration." should not be in present tense.

Not sure about this one... past tense (ie "... increased ...") doesn't seem appropriate as this applies the current situation, and will do so until construction is completed. I'll have a go at rewording/fixing this up later, or let me know if you have any ideas.

You're right, my apologies.

Route description

• Is the "shared pedestrian and bicycle path" a Segregated cycle facility? If so, it should be linked there.

 Done (linked to Segregated cycle facility#Off_road:_sidepath_.2F_shared-use_footway)

• "Located just north of the Narrows Bridge, on the eastern edge of Kings Park, is the Narrows Interchange" → "The Narrows Interchange is located just north of the Narrows Bridge, on the eastern edge of Kings Park."

 Done

Exits and interchanges

Looks good

References

• Ref #17 is a dead link.

 Done: Marked as {{dead link}} per WP:LINKROT. Also added another ref.

• Ref #2 lacks an accessdate.

 Done

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Good following changes above.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Properly sourced from reliable sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Very detailed route description

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral, not a very contriversial topic

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Very stable

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Good historic images

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is very informative and well-written. Nice job! ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 20:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]