Talk:Creek Turnpike/GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by TCN7JM in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ugh...I wanted to review this now, but the length is...well, long. Also, I just got done reviewing another article, so maybe later tonight or tomorrow. TCN7JM 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay, seeing as you're undoubtedly taking this to ACR right after I pass this, I'm going to scrutinize the article a bit more.

Infobox
Lead
Route description
Planning for the first segment
Tulsa requests changes
Construction
Opposition
Environmental concerns
  • Is there a total cost for the work the Norman firm did or just the cost per tree?
Extensions
Tolls
  • Passengers pay the tolls if you're in a two-axle vehicle but drivers pay them if you're in a vehicle with more than two axles?
    • Technically the driver is a passenger, like a square is a rectangle. Also, this is part of my plan to make people riding with me cough up money when I'm on the Creek Turnpike by pointing at this article and saying Wikipedia says so... No, seriously, it was an ill-advised attempt to vary sentence structure. Subbed "passengers" out. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I also note the inconsistency in punctuation in those first two sentences. Easily-avoidable parentheses are used in the first sentence, while commas, which look neater, are used in the second.
Exit list (Added after originally put on hold)

This was a very interesting article to read! I had no idea so much opposition existed for such a short turnpike. Well, that's it for my review. I'm putting the article  on hold for you to address these concerns. TCN7JM 03:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The changes recently made to the article make me feel that this one meets the Good Article criteria. I'm passing it. TCN7JM 05:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply