Talk:D21 road (Croatia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 04:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

First time I've reviewed a non-USRD article, so if I accidentally touch on standards that don't apply to Croatia, let me know. I can probably review this article on Tuesday if I don't finish it tonight. I'll be mainly offwiki tomorrow. TCN7JM 04:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• The first sentence is a bit concerning. Is "the" normally used before counties in Croatia? "80.1 kilometres (49.8 miles) long" just kind of sits there at the end of the sentence, there's no transition to it.
• "via the Slovene route 11" - It's G11, right? Why not mention that? Specificity is great in the lead.
• You need commas after Slovenia and Italy in the second sentence.
• "via relatively short connectors" - Not sure why "relatively" is used here. There's no comparison to be made, so I think it should be left out.
  • I meant to leave out "relatively", not "short". "Relatively connectors" makes no sense. TCN7JM 12:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course. I don't have a clue what was I thinking about when I removed the wrong word.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• "while serving the towns of Buje..."
• "and the volume increases by up to 1,000 vehicles" - What exactly does this mean? I'm not sure at all.
  • Okay, it's traffic volume. But from where to where does it increase by 1,000 vehicles and in what direction? TCN7JM 12:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Right. That's extra traffic recorded in summer - reflecting additional tourist traffic there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Route description

• The first two sentences are directly copy/pasted from the first two sentences of the lead....
  • Second sentence is still c/p'd I'm sure you could reword it a little bit. TCN7JM 12:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Rephrased.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That's all for now. TCN7JM 04:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review. Regarding the definite article ahead of county names - I'm not quite sure, but for what it's worth, I found numerous examples of its use. The remaining matters you brought up are now hopefully addressed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

More comments on the way. TCN7JM 03:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Route description

• Try to get rid of every usage of a phrase that starts with "<verb>ing" after a comma. It garbles up writing.
  • Tried to do so. Please have another look if I messed up something in the process.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• You start the sentence beginning with "about 400 meters" with a lowercase letter.
• In that same sentence, "border line" should be one combined word.
• "The" should go before names of border crossings.
• "and after further 800 metres" - Why not "and after 800 meters" or something similar?
  • The four issues above this line amended per offered suggestions.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• The last sentence in the first paragraph takes up two lines and is a complete run-on. It could probably be split in two.
  • Broken up as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Try to use {{convert/spell}} with single-digit kilometre measurements.
  • Ha! I did not know about that template. Come to think of it I struggled to avoid starting a sentence with a numeral in another article when this could be used. Changed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• "towards the village of Kaštel"
• The third comma in the first sentence of the second paragraph is extraneous.
• The second sentence has a list that uses "and" twice instead of using commas.
• The last two commas in the "South of Buje" sentence don't need to exist.
• Last sentence in the second paragraph uses "and" three times. Try to rewrite it and get rid of some uses.
• "i continues about 6 kilometers" - You do?
  • The six issues above this line are amended per suggestions offered. Please have another look at the "three ands" rephrasing though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• "the route once more turns south" → "the route turns south once more"
  • Reordered.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• "connecting Poreč ... to the west of the D21" - Elaborate. To what west of the D21 does it connect to?
  • Tried to clarify.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, the second comma is unnecessary.
• Also in that sentence, that last comma should be replaced with an endash since you used one earlier in the sentence for separation.
  • The two issues above this line are amended as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• The second-to-last sentence of the fourth paragraph has no sense of juxtaposition with the sentences surrounding it. Use a transition to fix this problem.
  • Rephrased, but I'm not sure if I improved the sentence at all. Could you please have another look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• "connecting the Kanfanar interchange of the A9 motorway to the east and Rovinj to the west." - Again...to what in the east?
  • Tried to clarify.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Second sentence in the fifth paragraph is a run-on.
  • Broken up.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• General note here: I don't think you need distance measurements in every sentence. Frankly, the parentheses clutter up the entire section.
  • I'm also not that happy with parentheses all over the place, but if it's not a dealbreaker here, I'd prefer to leave them in before the article is submitted to HWY ACR for a wider input on the issue. If the matter is an obstacle to GA, that will change, of course.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

History

• Move the comma in the first sentence to behind the word "antiquity".
  • Moved.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• As a general note, the usage of endashes to separate phrases should be kept to a minimum.
  • Point taken, one replaced with a comma.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• "deteriorate" in the first sentence of the second paragraph should be converted to past tense.
• "In 1809–1813" → "From 1809–1813"
• "The" should not generally be used before year numbers.
  • The three issues noted above this line are addressed as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Mentioning what happens in 1981 in one sentence and then 1930 in the next doesn't read correctly. It should be in chronological order.
  • Rearranged.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Traffic volume

• I fail to see why the table needs to mention that the traffic was measured on D21. That is the subject of the article after all.
  • Redundant column removed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Major intersections

• Why does the header need to mention that the route is in Croatia?
• You should use either commas or semicolons to separate notes, not both.
• Notes that follow a semicolon shouldn't be capitalized.
  • I think I got all of them now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

References

• Ref 2 is dead.
  • Referenced E751/G11 using different sources.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Translating Refs 12 and 17 to English on Google Chrome blanks all text on the page. Are there better sources you could use?
  • Actually those two are identical for now. Apparently the url moved and it is fixed now, but I'll refine both instances of the cite further with exact page numbers to allow machine translation of specific pages (I got back message that the document is too big to translate in one go - using IE and Google Translate). I'll post here as soon as this is done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I managed to narrow down the page range (cite 14 now) to four pages only and c/p of those to Google Translate produces an English translation for me. Does that work for you?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's all. I was surprised that I had this many concerns. I've read your work before and it's usually really good. Because of that, I trust that you can fix this in a week or less, so I'll put it on hold. Have fun! TCN7JM 03:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked over the article once more and found the following minor errors.

After a few minor changes I have made myself, I will pass the article. If you plan on sending this to ACR, there are a few things you should know:

1. Looking over the article once or twice and fixing minor errors (which was most of what this review consisted of) before you send the article to ACR will help in the long run.
2. HWY ACR is extremely backed up right now. We barely have enough reviewers to find five reviewers (three for writing issues, one image checker, one to spotcheck the references).

Well good luck! TCN7JM 23:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)