Talk:A9 (Croatia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: InTheAM (talk · contribs) 13:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well-written

The article is well-written. There are only minor fixes needed:

• The dashes and hyphens need to be made consistent. Some places use hyphens where dashes should be.

• I tried to make this consistent throughout the article and conforming to WP:DASH. Still, I'm far from sure on this one, so please let me know if there's more to do in this department.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• In the rest area list, the notes column would read better if they were set up like this: "There are x, y, and z at the XYZ rest stop."

•  Done per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The lead is good.

Factually accurate and verifiable

The article is well-referenced, and the sources seem reliable.

Broad in its coverage

The article has a couple issues regarding detail and missing information.

• The Route description has too much detail about interchanges and roadways that cross the A9 and not enough about the actual route. The interchange details need cut back and a proper description of A9's route needs added.

• I tried to achieve this cutting back clutter and adding more about the route itself. Hope I hit some sort of balance there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The rest of the sections are good.

Neutral

The article is mostly written in a neutral point of view.

• However, in the Notable structures section, the phrases "particularly noteworthy" and "most significant" are problematic. It can be fixed by explaining why they are notable/significant. Are they the longest, biggest, most expensive, etc.?

• Yes, I agree that particularly noteworthy and significant were overdoing it. I tried to reword the section to avoid such terms and explain notability.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Stable

• The article appears stable.

Images

• Images are all tagged with copyright status and/or fair-use rationale.
• The captions leave a little to be desired. I think they need some detail. For example, the one only says "The A9 Motorway."

I will put the review on hold for 7 days while these issues are addressed. InTheAM 19:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review this article. I think that your comments are helpful and constructive in respect of improving the article and I'll try to address the issues raised here in a day or two, or within the 7 day period at the latest.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to address the concerns raised here, please let me know if there's anything else that need be done. I believe this review helped improved the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I was out of town over the weekend and just now got to see your changes. I'll look at it today and tomorrow and get back to you. InTheAM 20:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Good job. I'm listing it as GA. InTheAM 01:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)