Talk:A9 (Croatia)

A9 (Croatia) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Highways: Europe High‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the European Highways Task Force.

Croatia Mid‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reason for moving

(Forgot to write this) This is still just an expressway (Croatian: Brza cesta) and not a highway. It's also signed as B9 and it appears as B9 on the official webpage of the company which built and maintains the expressway (www.bina-istra.hr).

A9 and the highways in Croatia template

Since a part of the A9 (Pula-Kanfanar) is now operated as a motorway, I propose moving it in the highways in Croatia template along with the remaining motorways in use. It is true that it is not complete north of Kanfanar IC, but neither are the A1, A2 and A7 complete yet they qualify as motorways. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additions and changes

Hi

Can someone perhaps clarify some points that I see as either incomplete from Google Earth, or perhaps needing additions to the article?

Work appears to be underway to continue the A9 between Pula and Pula airport through on to Jadreški and Šišan, is it destined to finish in Medulin?
Umag - surely one would use the 5003->5002, and not the A9, to get to the border crossing?
Why is there no mention of Verteneglio, Buje, Kaštelir, Višnjan, Kanfanar, Gimino, Svetvinčenat, Valle d'Istria or Vodnjan?
Which way is this article being narrated? Some parts start in the North, some in the South. As the opening starts in the South, with Pula, I would suggest adopting that as the standard - though the distance table seems to be from some arbitrary point in the North (and seems to be no mention where exactly that starting point is).
The first mention is Buje -> Nova Vas, the next mention calls it the Umag -> Medaki. There needs to be clarity here, Buje is 3km from the A9/D300 roundabout, Umag is 8km away. Surely this was just extending the 6km Buje -> Nova Vas section on south to Medaki?

I will add any more I think of whilst copy-editing. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Officially the motorway ends at Pula interchange, from that point on, a county road (four lane, at first, two-lane later on) continues southwards towards Pomer south of Pula. There are no plans at this moment to extend it to either Šišan or the airport. The airport is connected by the D401 road (Croatia) state road (two lane, at-grade intersections).

The northern end imagery available at the Google Earth/Maps is quite outdated, as the motorway is slightly extended north of the Umag interchange (and the Ž5002) connection to a newly built roundabout representing a junction to the D200 road (Croatia) and D510 road (Croatia). This development is noted and referenced in the article. Each of the state roads leads to separate border crossings to Slovenia.

Verteneglio, Buje, Kaštelir, Višnjan, Kanfanar, Gimino, Svetvinčenat, Valle d'Istria or Vodnjan were not mentioned in the prose as a way to limit prose size. Verteneglio is mentioned in the junction list, although referred as Brtonigla. Kaštelir is farily small (only 283 inhabitants) and quite non-notable. Gimino, i.e. Žminj is more associated with the A8 (Croatia) with an eponymous interchange. Valle d'Istria, i.e. Bale (town) and Svetvinčenat are also fairly small with 1000-2000 inhabitants each and I was not quite sure whether those warranted a mention. All other specified toponyms are there in the prose and the junction list.

As far as the narration sequence is concerned, the suggestion is quite fine, and I see no problem with rearranging the text in either way, whichever may be the simpler form. I would still retain chronological order in the history section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just posted on the D510 talk page, as I cannot find it on any maps. I use OVI maps on my phone and neither that nor Google maps or earth seem to list the 510. While I appreciate that Google may be out of date, OVI maps is used as a sat-nav and it would be silly if they had missed off a road, or directed one the wrong way, so I find it unlikely that their material would be so innacurate. It is important as the road is mentioned, yet unsupported by any refs so far. If no proof of its existence can be shown, how can we leave it in the article?

What do you mean by "chronological form in the history" - if you are referring to the double naming of the buje to Nova Vas sections, then that cannot be correct.

As for mentioning the other towns, there is no real harm in making the prose any bigger, they can have a mention as small as "this new section passes close to the towns of X, Y, and Z" or bigger giving more detail. The article is quite small, to pass at GA it should be "not much more can be added", so I really don;t think that increasing the prose and mentioning towns it passes can be of any harm. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the Google Maps there and the sat imagery actually shows road works between 45.452966N, 13.619957E and 45.455104N, 13.636608E, the latter corresponding to coords of roundabout in this article image - a terminus of the D510. The road and the roundabout were completed in late June 2010, so that may account for the omission if the nav software is older than that.

I feel you're right about benefits of prose expansion and I'll expand it ASAP. As far as the chronological form of history section is concerned, I ment to have the section say this part of the motorway was completed in X as the first section, followed by that section completed in Y and so on.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don;t think I am being picky, or just going on about it for the sake of an argument :¬) THe reason is that my OVI maps shows it as completed, but puts it as the A9/E751 and names it as the "Istarski Ipsilon" - is that the same road? On my OVI map it corresponds to that piece of road shown as incomplete n Google. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The part shown as roadworks in Google maps are actually a part of the A9/E751/Istarski Ipsilon. The road extending from the north end of the GM incomplete patch and marked as E751 in the GM is the D510. The spot where the unfinished (as shown in GM) part of A9 ends (north end) and intersects the road marked as 200 in the GM (D200) and the D510 is location of the roundabout shown in the Glas Istre article (linked above).

I certainly don't consider your remarks as anything but aimed at improving the article and I appreciate them.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I was still trying to get it all in but had an edit conflict lol ...

"The reason is that my OVI maps shows it as completed, but puts it as the A9/E751 and names it as the "Istarski Ipsilon", which ends at the D200 roundabout and becomes the D21 on the other side - is that the same road? On my OVI map it corresponds to that piece of road shown as incomplete in Google." Chaosdruid (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the EC. The roundabout is junction of the A9 (incomplete in GM, complete in real world), the D200 (properly marked in GM and OSM), and the D510. The OSM correctly marks this part of the road as defined by applicable legislation and situation on the ground. The D21 runs south from Kaštel border crossing to Kaštel and further on south more or less parallel to the A9.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that seals it's fate! It is the D510 and that seems to be the correct source to use as the ref. As the other sources (Google, OVI) give it as different things, I feel we can discount them and go with that one unless something else comes up to show a renaming. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I can add the toponyms mentioned above (and probably some more) within few hours if that's alright.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, didn't read that last post. I have just come back to start the copyedit. I am just doing a quick run through though, so any additions should be fine as I will do a more thorough one second time around. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE copyedit October 2011

Hi

I have copyedited the lead as a start, as well as those down to and including the "Notable structures" section. Can I have some feedback to ensure that I have not changed anything to being incorrect? I have added quite a bit of material to the lead, especially around the Kanfanar interchange. I am a dubious of putting "Beginning in Pula", and think perhaps it should read "Starting from Pula". Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rest areas - "Even though rest areas found along the A4 motorway generally follow this ranking system ..." - not sure why the A4 is suddenly mentioned?

Silly typo, nothing more.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

The last paragraph seems to be a repeated in the next section.

Further construction

This section seems to repeat the last paragraph of the "History" section.

Indeed, I split the paragraph now to leave what belongs to history in the "History" section and planned upgrade in the "Further construction" section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic volume

"published by Hrvatske ceste" - what is this?

Hrvatske ceste is a state owned company authorized to build and maintain state roads. The company also measures traffic volume on the state and county roads, and publishes that information along with traffic volume data provided to the company by motorway operators, BINA Istra in this case. The publication is made each year, usually in May.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First run finished. Please check over and comment :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking time and effort to copyedit this article. I appreciate it very much. Here are some comments on the first-run edits:

The A9 motorway is a part of the Istrian Y and the Croatian motorway network, so I'm not quite sure about formulation that "it runs north to the Croatian motorway and express-way network at the Kanfanar..." (in the lead). Furthermore chainage of the route starts (signposting and legislation defined) at the north end, so perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it ends near Pula instead of beginning in Pula.
Mirna Bridge and Limska Draga Viaduct are indeed currently (October 2011) single carriageway, two-lane (one lane for each traffic direction, with no physical separation except a painted white line). Construction of parallel structures carrying the second carriageway and achieving cross-section comprising four traffic lanes (2 in each direction) is planned.

~~I will slightly expand the "Route description" section with additional settlements connected as discussed before. I expect that to be done in about an hour.~~--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The route description section is now expanded as discussed earlier. Could you please take a look at that part of the text too?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So using the state legislated direction, it is a north-south motorway and everything should be quoted north first and heading south. I will try and get the second run through done tomorrow - see note on your talk page for explanation. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A9 (Croatia)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Orphaned references in A9 (Croatia)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of A9 (Croatia)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "HC-promet":

From A1 (Croatia): "Traffic counting on the roadways of Croatia in 2009 – digest" (PDF). Hrvatske ceste. 1 May 2010. Retrieved 6 September 2010.
From A12 (Croatia): "Traffic counting on the roadways of Croatia in 2009 - digest" (PDF). Hrvatske Ceste. May 1, 2010.
From Croatia: "Traffic counting on the roadways of Croatia in 2009 – digest" (PDF). Hrvatske ceste. Retrieved 1 May 2010.
From D48 road (Croatia): "Traffic counting on the roadways of Croatia in 2009 - digest" (PDF). Hrvatske ceste. May 1, 2010.
From A8 (Croatia): Božić, Milorad (2011). "Traffic counting on the roadways of Croatia in 2010" (PDF). Zagreb, Croatia: Hrvatske ceste. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
From A4 (Croatia): "Traffic counting on the roadways of Croatia in 2009 - digest" (PDF). Hrvatske ceste. Retrieved May 1, 2010.
From D400 road (Croatia): "Traffic counting on the roadways of Croatia in 2009 - digest" (PDF). Hrvatske ceste. May 1, 2010.
From D424 road (Croatia): "Traffic counting on the roadways of Croatia in 2009 - digest" (PDF). Hrvatske ceste. May 1, 2010.
From A11 (Croatia): "Brojanje prometa na cestama Republike Hrvatske godine 2010" (PDF). Hrvatske ceste. 2010. Retrieved September 14, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
From Mirna Bridge: "Traffic counting on the roadways of Croatia in 2009 - digest" (PDF). Hrvatske ceste. May 1, 2010. Retrieved September 24, 2010.
From A5 (Croatia): "Brojenje prometa na cestama Republike Hrvatske - sažetak" (PDF) (in Croatian). Hrvatske ceste. 2011. Retrieved 28 September 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
From A7 (Croatia): "Traffic counting on the roadways of Croatia in 2009 - digest" (PDF). Hrvatske ceste. May 1, 2010. Retrieved September 6, 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A9 (Croatia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718202924/http://www.casopis-gradjevinar.hr/dokumenti/200407/6.pdf to http://www.casopis-gradjevinar.hr/dokumenti/200407/6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on A9 (Croatia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]