Talk:Majura Parkway/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 11:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to review this. I generally check all the sources first, with attention to making sure that the information present in the article can be verified to them. This will take a day or so, at which point I should have a comprehensive set of actions and can make a decision on whether to pass, fail, or hold.

Thanks for taking the review. Ill tick everything off as I believe its completed, but if anything needs further work, just let me know :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

General

• No disambigs - good

 Done - No action required

• No dead refs - good

 Done - No action required

• As I stated on WT:GAN, no stability problems, no edit wars

 Done - No action required

• You could do with a map of the project - it'll convey information better than prose for some of the article. I can probably knock one up in OpenStreetMap for you if you like.

• I would appreciate that , the current alignment of the construction has been improved since I last checked on OSM. If you wish to base it off that, where the road crosses Morshead Drive, near its southern end requires both carriageways being moved just to the left (west) of the intersection it is currently shown as crossing over.

Okay, the map is up at File:Majura Parkway.jpg. I'll leave it up to you to use as appropriate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Added File:MajuraParkwayMap.svg instead -- Nbound (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust sizing/positioning if required -- Nbound (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• Take out the blank fields in the infobox.

 Done

• You're currently writing things in the future tense (ie: "The Majura Parkway will be a"). Try writing it in the present tense instead (ie: "The Majura Parkway is a proposed"). The main advantage of doing this is when the road opens, the article doesn't need to be changed as much.

 Done

• Australian Capital Territory is wikilinked twice. You should drop the second wikilink and move (ACT) up to the first definition of it, then use ACT after that

• I'll come back to rest of the lead later.

Route description

• The first paragraph could do with being split up a bit. I wonder if it's worth giving an overall summary of the route first, and then spend a number of paragraphs outlining specifics. I probably wouldn't include anything that's either not notable enough to have an article now, or you think should have one.

 Done - Have removed what I believe to be extraneous, also have reworded a little and split into sections that are easier to digest.

• You don't need four references to cite one paragraph. Take the individual facts from each source, and attribute them to the sentence or sentences that are supported by them.

 Done - Removed unneeded refs

• I would afford more importance to the fact the road replaces the Majura Road, as it's probably (IMHO) the most important thing about the article. People can see where the road is on a map; a WP article will tell them why it's there.

 Done - As part of the RD fix-up above I focused more on Majura Road and the reasons for replacement.

More later...... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me know if any of the above requires any further work - Nbound (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• There's still some future tense in the opening paragraph.

I thought you only wanted the lead in present tense? Im not sure it is appropriate to have the RD as if the road was already built. Thoughts?

• The article links to Canberra Airport but the source says "Canberra International Airport".

Canberra Airport is the current name of Canberra International Airport. They removed the international bit because there isnt any international flights to/from there except occasionally those of visiting and departing political figures. (Its the only airport in Canberra aswell).

• The two SMEC sources could do with page numbers, to make it easier to find what is verified where.

 Done - No action required (It is already listed in the ref (the page numbers are like 12-4, 3-5, 7-2 - these dont depict a series of pages, but are the pages as described by their numbering system).

History

• The second sentence has the word "Further" in it twice.

 Done

• The sentence about the eastern alignment being scrapped is glossed over. I'll have a look for news sources to see if they discuss it in more depth.

• Can you find a link for the Canberra Times sources?

No, they are stored on a private (non-public access) server.

• The first sentence in the third paragraph could probably do with being split up.

 Done - Used semi-colon to provide appropriate pause, let me know if wish more to be done.

Intersections and interchanges

• The "km" and "mile" boxes seem redundant - they don't tell us anything that can't be referred to from anywhere else

You cant remove them AFAIK. I could probably figure out approx distances, but I figured that would be WP:SYN.

I'm going off to look for some news sources, I'll comment more when I get them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Here are some other sources I found online. I generally find it's worth picking stuff from multiple sources if practical. Adding specific quotes about various projects sometimes adds a bit of "colour" to a basic description, giving it more a human touch.

• JOINT MEDIA STATEMENT - CONSTRUCTION ON THE MAJURA PARKWAY BEGINS -  Done Very similar to below sources and others existing, have used as a supporting reference.

• Majura Parkway -  Done

• Majura Parkway construction officially begins -  Done

• JobPac - First sod turned on ACT's $288m Majura Parkway -  Done (same content as above)

• Majura Parkway to flank solar fields -  Done This information was previously split into its own article, its not of any direct relevance to the parkway itself, just to be built in the same location.

• ACT - Terrority and Municipal Services - Majura Parkway -  Done - Already heavily cited (Same content as majuraparkway.act.gov.au)

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me know if there are any further/remaining issues that need to be worked through -- Nbound (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: - Just making sure you hadnt forgotten me (Apologies if you have been busy) -- Nbound (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy elsewhere (mostly getting Hammond Organ towards GA status). I wasn't quite sure what to do with this, as I don't normally get involved with this type of article - I have a few road related GAs but they're all with a historical / social science angle. Looking at a recent passed GA, Maryland Route 198, I think the principal problem is the lead needs to be a little bigger. The sources I looked for seem to be duplicates, and quite a bit of work was done in the previous GA review, so I would guess that provided the lead is sorted out, it should be in a state to pass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thats alright :), I have now mentioned Majura Road in the lead, but I think the major parts of the article are already summarised there. Happy to hear ideas on how to expand further though -- Nbound (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Manual of style guidelines for the lead (which is one of the MOS sections required to adhere to to pass a GA review), you probably want two paragraphs - the first one describes what the road is, the second explains why it's needed and summarises other bits from the "Route" and "History" section. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: - Have split into the what and why paragraphs and have added some more material. let me know what you think (you are more than welcome to copyedit or add in further material if you feel it necessary ) -- Nbound (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a read through. The article's quite short still compared to the things I put up for GA, but it looks like you've got it as broad a coverage as you can get, and other similarly sized articles on the same subject pass GA. We've covered MOS adherence, the article looks well written and properly cited to reliable sources, images have correct copyright status, so I'm going to pass it. Well done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)