Talk:Anthony Henday Drive/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 10:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and leaving the lead until the end. Can I suggest you record any issues that you have addressed with comments and/or the {{Done}} template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text more difficult to read at a later date, and this review is an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Route description

Overview

• The entire road is paved with asphalt, except for... Entire does not work well with except. Suggest "Most of the road is paved..."

West and north Edmonton

• curving northeast toward the city of St. Albert. Suggest wikilink to [St Albert, Alberta].
• where it reduces to two lanes each way from three. Suggest this would be better as "where it reduces from three lanes each way to two."

East and south Edmonton

• ...similar in design to those of the southwest crossing... This is not very obvious. I presume the southwest crossing is the 360m twin bridges described in West and north Edmonton, since those are slightly longer, but you would not guess that they were in the southwest from the description. Can this be clarified?

Interchange design

• the most common being the partial cloverleaf ranging from four to six total ramps. Total presumably refers to the number, rather than being a qualifier of ramps. Suggest "the partial cloverleaf, with between four and six ramps."
• fourth level flyovers are not required like in a stack interchange. Suggest "as in" rather than "like in".

Traffic

• all four lane sections of Henday were over 40,000 vehicles per day in 2015. Suggest replacing "were" with "carried".
• use of AADT. This is used as just an acronym on first occurrence, and then bracketed (AADT) after a description of what it represents. It would be better if the first occurrence was expanded, ie Annual average daily traffic (AADT), and (AADT) omitted after the description.

History

Early plans

• Areas ... were ... called a Restricted Development Area. Presumably, each of the areas were so designated. Suggest "... called Restricted Development Areas."
• the Alberta provincial government ... continued land acquisitions. Had they been buying up land previously for this purpose? Needs clarifying.

South construction

• With its CANAMEX designation... This is the first mention in the body of the article, and so should be wikilinked. I suggest it also needs a few words of explanation at this point, to maintain the text for flow.
• the consolidation ... are managed. Should be "is managed", because consolidation is singular.

The future

• and upgraded to an freeway. Should be "a freeway".
• The final paragraph is a single sentence. Suggest merging it with the previous paragraph.

• Overall, the text is well written for grammar and flow. There are a number of places where long sentences could do with some additional punctuation, which you might like to address at some point, but this will not affect the GA outcome.

I will be checking the references next. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. All prose issues addressed. -- Acefitt 19:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead should introduce and summarise the main points of the article. It does this quite well.

References

• The references generally support the text as written very well. There are two main issues. One is where a multi-page pdf file is referenced, but no page number is given. The other is where a page number is given, but that page number is the page in the pdf, rather the page in the document. This typically occurs where there are introductory pages (i to iv, for instance) and maybe an index, so that page 1 of the document starts on page 9 of the pdf file, for instance. This should normally cite the page number of the document, or make it clear that the page number refers to the pdf file (so p.32 (of pdf)). The following are multi-page pdfs without a page number.

• Ref 9 Schedule 18 - Technical Requirements (Northeast) - 711 pages

  Most instances swapped to different ref. -- Acefitt 19:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 13 Northeast Leg – Anthony Henday Drive - Environmental Assessment - Final Report - 264 pages
• Ref 16a Constructability of the North Saskatchewan River Bridge - 26 pages
• Ref 44 Governments of Canada and Alberta fund Edmonton ring road interchange - 6 pages
• Ref 46 P3 enables Anthony Henday Drive S.E. to open in 2007 - 6 pages
• Ref 47 Construction set to begin on north Edmonton ring road - 9 pages
• Ref 56 Construction digs-in on final leg of Edmonton ring road - 4 pages
• Ref 59 Fiscal Plan/Capital Plan 2016 - 140 pages
• Ref 64 Schedule 18, Appendix A – Drawings Issued for Agreement (Northwest) - 42 pages

   Done. All addressed. -- Acefitt 19:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• 16a (tagged to footnote 4) still has no page number. Is this because the note is just pointing to the existence of the document, rather than specific info within it?

  Correct. -- Acefitt 18:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The following cite the pdf page number, rather than the document page number.

• Ref 18 Schedule 18 - Technical Requirements (Northwest) - p.32 (pdf), p.16 (doc)
• Ref 23 Schedule 18 - Technical Requirements (Southeast) - p.37 (pdf), p.19 (doc)
• Ref 24 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets - p.844 (pdf), p.807 (doc)
• Ref 36 TUC Program Policy - p.12 (pdf), p.9 (doc)
• Ref 41 Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation Annual Report 2005-2006 - p.30 (pdf), p.27 (doc). Reference says p.29.
• Ref 63 North East Edmonton Ring Road Advanced Functional Plan - Bridge Planning Summary Report - p.9 quoted, but I cannot find the quote on either p.9 (pdf) or p.9 (doc).

Additionally:

• Ref 2 Volker Stevin Highways part of JV that reaches financial close on next leg of Ring Road project needs deadurl=yes switch, as the original url is no longer valid.

 Done. All references addressed. -- Acefitt 19:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The formal bit

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):

   See comments above

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments above

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I will leave things for a few days, and will only put the article on hold if there is no movement. Do let me know if you have any queries about the issues raised. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• All issues have now been addressed, so I am pleased to award the article GA status. Congratulations. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)