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)[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]