Wikipedia:Peer review/European route E71/archive1

European route E71

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like a fresh opinion on steps required to raise quality of the article to B or GA.

Thanks, Tomobe03 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—The article needs a basic history of the route to be more than a start-class for WP:HWY. I'll grant that most details about the constituent highways' histories will be in those articles, but this article needs some type of history, perhaps a generalized overview of how and when the E71 designation came to be with a summary of how the constituent highways came to be as well. Imzadi 1979 → 17:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your comments. I'll get around to implementing your advice.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done (at least as a start)--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded that section too now. I tried to get some sort of balance to the section as a summary of the constituent highways, as proposed. Thanks for the pointers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GAN.

A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several GAs on Croation highways at Category:GA-Class Highways articles. There are also many FAs on highways at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Transport
I now see that some of the model GAs are Croation highways which are included in this route. I would look at those articles and see what details there can be added here

For the time being I would not like to include level of information currently present in the, say A1 (Croatia) in this article per WP:SUMMARY, i.e. I'd like to strike a balance in this article and provide more detailed info in the constituent road articles (such as the A1). In my opinion that concept would allow a better overview while retaining details in linked articles, in line with the above comments regarding History made by Imzadi. If this means that the article my fall short of GA - so be it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that all of the GAs and the FAs that I checked all have a map of the course of the highway, so that seems like a priority for this article.

Not done The map would add to the article. I don't have access to one right now, but I'll try to get one into the article before any GA nomination.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is currently only one paragraph long and by WP:LEAD can be up to four paragraphs, depending on length of the article. My guess is that this could be 2 or 3 paragraphs.

Not done WP:LEAD specifies one to two paragraphs for articles up to 15,000 characters long. Since this article has approximately 9,500 characters (including the lead itself) I don't think it is necessary to add another paragraph without an additional justification.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way

Not done Actually, I rechecked this and found no omission. I am aware that this is required of a good lead. Did you have anything specific in mind that I may be missing?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has several fairly vague statements like The motorway sections are generally tolled through varying systems and rates. Reading the section on tolls, it looksl ike the tolled parts are only in Hungary and Croatia, so I think those specifics should be added to the lead. Also through varying systems and rates tells the reader very little than just having The motorway sections are generally tolled would - I would not include rates as that seems like it owuld be too specific and falls under WP:NOT, but mentioning the specific kind of systems (mostly ETC and some ticket) seems like it would help here.

Done per suggestion --Tomobe03 (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Language is OK in places and needs some work in others - in the lead this is not grammatically correct The E71 route is gradually upgraded from a regular two-lane road to motorway standards since 1970s, and the upgrades are still being carried out in some areas. and should be something like The E71 route has gradually been upgraded from a regular two-lane road to motorway standards since 1970s; upgrades are still being carried out in some areas. (tightened the last phrase)

Done per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will need a copy edit befor GAN

A GOCE copyedit is requested, as I'm aware of these issues.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done It appears that GOCE did some copyediting...

Last paragraph of Route description is pretty long and could probably be split in two

Done Yes, I agree this will allow more comfortable reading of the text.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would help to provide context to the reader to give some sort of explanatory sentence before this one The 2008 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) report on the E-road network specifies that the E71 route diverges from the A1 motorway at Karlovac interchange and switches to the D1 state road passing through Karlovac towards Plitvice Lakes, switches to the D217 and reaches Ličko Petrovo Selo/Izačić border crossing to Bosnia and Herzegovina. (which could be the start of the nex paragraph mentioned above). The explanatory sentence could be something like Although the E71 route is legally specified over one set of highways, as of 2011, there are differences between that route and what is actually marked with signs ... Not great, but maybe it gives you an idea.

Done in a similar manner. I rearranged the paragraph, splitting it in two and adding a sentence for clarification.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is some repetition in the article - for example the Course section describes plans to upgrade the northernmost section to the R4 expressway, and then the Hostory section repeats most of this information in slightly different form. I think I would pare down the description in Course (though I think one sentence saying this is the future R4 route would be fine) and put most of the detail in History.

Done in a similar manner to the suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to have a future plans subsection of History?

Done IMO it would. Otherwise there is an abrupt skip from history to future developments, yet there are too few documented development plans to warrant a full section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of Bosnia and Herzegovinia highways in See also?

Done ... sort of. There is no Highways in Bosnia and Herzegovina article, so I wikilinked a more general Transport in Bosnia and Herzegovina until such an article is created.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Your comments are useful and I appreciate the effort. I'll tackle the issues pointed out shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again thanks for the comments. I'll have to postpone inclusion of a map until I manage to get or make one. Even though I did not do anything about the lead right now, I am aware it leaves some room for improvement and hopefully I'll get around to touch-up the lead before any GA, which will have to wait for a map anyway. In the meantime I hope this helps move quality of the article towards the B class.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]