Talk:Portage Glacier Highway/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 00:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I do not like the structure of the route description in referring to parts of the road such as the first part, second part, etc. This should be reworded.

    Done I believe this is fixed.

   There are a lot of sentences with "this stretch". Can some other words be used for some of these? Dough4872 20:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

    Done I think

   • The headers in the route description should be fixed. Either add a header for the section west of the Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel or remove the headers completely. I would recommend the latter.

    Done

   Is it possible for a header to be added to the first section of the Route description? Dough4872 20:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

    Done

   • There should not be bolding in the route description.

    Done

   • "The traffic count on the Portage Glacier Highway is somewhat high for a road in Alaska, with the 2010 traffic count for the Anton Anderson Tunnel being at 234,738 vehicles", high compared to what? I would suggest rewording to remove the comparison that it is high.

    Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • References should not be in the lead unless the information is unique there.

    Done unnecessary reference removed.

   • Reference 1 is a dead link.

    Done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Can some details about the physical surroundings be mentioned in the lead?

    Done

   • Can some more historical information be added to the lead?

    Done

   • I would suggest moving the information about the Intermodal Connector Route and National Highway System to the Route description.

    Done

   • I would suggest moving the Tolls section to before the History.

    Done

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I will put the article on hold for fixes to be made. Dough4872 00:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the issues have been resolved. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that all new issues have been fixed. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 01:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

After some fixes I made myself, I will pass the article. Dough4872 01:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)