Talk:Monaro Highway/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll go through and make straightforward changes (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Avoid mentioning Cann River twice in the first two sentences.

Fixed -- Nbound (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• It received its current name in 1958, though the same name had been in use by the Snowy Mountains Highway up until 1955. - err the same name is Monaro Highway here?

Reworded -- Nbound (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• In the future the northern end of the Monaro Highway as it currently stands will link onto the Majura Parkway, which is currently under construction - generally avoid terms suc has "currently" or "recently" - best would be to get an estimated finish/completion date and slot in.

Reworded -- Nbound (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Has this got a writeup in travel books or mags? If it is a scenic drive it might have....

Its not known for being scenic, what kind of information were you after? I can certainly attempt to accommodate -- Nbound (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Any other information about - dangerous/black spots, traffic accidents, environmental impacts, condition of road, traffic heaviness (in Canberra) - would be good if it could be sourced.....

I have exams in a week so its unlikely I can get all that in within that time, is there anything you'd prefer more than the rest? -- Nbound (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure - depends if anything is out there - these are other areas I'd explore before signing off on an article as being comprehensive. You might have already looked and if nothing has come up then that's fine. I am happy to wait a few days to see if anything turns up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@Casliber: - yeah definitely not going to have time this week. Three choices:

• Pass as-is (I always planned to add much of what is listed, and it will definitely be explored before a run at a higher quality level)
• Extended on-hold (Give me 2-4 weeks)
• Fail (and I will renom when ready)

I wasnt expecting the road to sit in GA as long as it has. I respect your decision in any case -- Nbound (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well written overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@Casliber: - Thanks for your review, looking forward to hearing your replies. -- Nbound (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

ok, I do think we're nearly there - as I have often worked on esoteric/specialised articles I understand it can be tricky collecting info and sometimes the information just isn't there. If you look and there is nothing I'd be happy to pass it, so am happy then to leave on hold to allow some digging, and if you come back with little or nothing then what we have probably is comprehensive with respect to what sourceable material is actually out there (and I will AGF and pass it), so take your time and be thorough and ping me either way. All good. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ill let you know when the article is ready -- Nbound (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Casliber: - Sorry for big delay, too much stuff going on IRL. Ive added a sentence on the traffic in canberra (43000 vehicles per day on average), the rest while it can possibly be sourced and added eventually would take some significant work. As such, just pass/fail on the current contents. If it fails, Ill re-nom farther into the future when the rest can be found/studied and integrated. -- Nbound (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: -on thinking about it, it is pretty comprehensive/broad - the other material can be for FAC (something to aim for anyway) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)