Jump to content

Talk:Puerto Rico Highway 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineePuerto Rico Highway 10 was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 24, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
February 21, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Reassessment

[edit]

I have reassessed this article to C class because of the frequent uncited and original research statements found through the article. Per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria, linked to from Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Assessment this article is as follows:

  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. >>>>>>>>>> FIXED. Everything is cited. Mercy11 (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. >>>>>>>>>> FIXED. Unless you can cite some specific examples of what was, in your view, ommited. Mercy11 (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The article has a defined structure.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. >>>>>>>>>> ADDRESSED. To the best of my abilities. Mercy11 (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. >>>>>>>>>> FIXED. This goes back to citations. and plenty of them are provided. Mercy11 (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.

Number 1 is per my above comments, two is per the fact that the article is missing a proper road junction list which is an official MOS item required on USRD articles. Three is fine, four no per the GA review. Five the infobox is not up to USRD standards, you need to clean up the list of major junctions. Also the image needs to be sent to the Graphics Lab per the GA review. And the article is understandable, so six is a pass. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • UPDATE. All of Admrboltz's comments have been addressed. #1 Everything is cited. #2 The article is no longer missing a proper road junction list. #3 is fine. #4 Everything from teh GA review was fixed. #5 List of major junctions in Infobox was cleaned up. And image was sent to the lab. #6 is a pass. Mercy11 (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admrboltz didn't mention it, but each reference should be reformatted and there are a few issues with some of them. There's no requirement to use the various citation templates ({{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite map}}, etc.) but I think you'd be well served to use them. Most of them have parameters for holding an English language translation of the title and indicating that the source is in Spanish.
  1. Dead link. A new source should be found, or the previous source should be located through the Wayback Machine. WP:V means we should be able to verify the content of the article to a source, but we can't. (If it is revived, it's a good idea to indicate that the source is a PDF instead of just relying on the little PDF icon. Not all browsers display images.) >>>>>>>>> FIXED. Mercy11 (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No access date. If the link ever goes dead, there are bots that will find the source in the various online archives, or others can do so by hand. Having the access date makes this process easier either way. >>>>>>>>> FIXED. Mercy11 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LIke some of the other references, this is formatted so that the whole citation is the link. That's pushing the spirit of WP:OVERLINK which aims to minimize the amount of blue links in the article. Normally the link to the source is set up as just the title, which allows wikilinks to publishers and stuff. >>>>>>>>> FIXED. Mercy11 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is a duplicate of #3. Use <ref name=Foo>Bar...</ref> the first time you use and define the footnote. Then when you need to reuse that footnote, just insert <ref name=Foo/> and it will reuse the full reference. The footnote n the list will have letters for each repetition.>>>>>>>>> FIXED. Imzadi fixed this one. Just for the record: It no longer matters anyway because the info carrying the citation in question moved out of this article into the PR-123 article when the "split" was done. Mercy11 (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Nothing too wrong here. Once again, the full citation was used as the link.>>>>>>>>> FIXED ALSO.
  6. Who published this source? When was it published? Who wrote it? Where was it published? When did you access it? That's what's missing. Having said that, the source mentions this road, but it's from 1910. There's probably better sources out there.>>>>>>>>> FIXED ALSO.
  7. Same issue with the sea of blue like the others. Something else to consider for all of the sources, but "page" is usually abbreviated "p." and "pages" is "pp.". When dealing with a range of pages, use an en dash – instead of a hyphen -. That's a basic MOS:DASH item. >>>>>>>>> FIXED ALSO.
  8. This is a self-published source. Find a replacement source. Don't argue and debate it, in general SPSs are not allowed per WP:RS, and the exceptions are just rare, and I don't think this gentleman will qualify for the exception. Assuming for a moment that he did, ALL CAPS should be redone as Title Case or Sentence case. No access date. >>>>>>>>> FIXED. No argument or debate here. If anyone considered this unreliable and/or self-published,,, problems are now solved per edit summary.
  9. Dead link, see #1. More information should be supplied if you can revive the dead link.>>>>>>>>> FIXED ALSO. This was fixed when #1 was fixed. ::#Couple things. The link formatting is busted so we're seeing the raw URL. Normally authors names are given first (and then surname, first name order). The title of the article doesn't go in italics, it does in "quotation marks". Italics is reserved for the title of the full work, not an article in it. A translated title should be provided for the article title, and it should be noted that the source is in Spanish.
  10. Duplicate of #10. Use named references to combine them like I demonstrate in #4. >>>>>>>>> FIXED. All refernces in teh article are now named references, and have been for a while.
  11. Citation is the full link. Wrong item in italics. "By" isn't really used to indicate an author, especially when standard reference formatting order is used. No accessdate. >>>>>>>>> FIXED. All "By"'s removed. Also all the references now have access dates.
  12. Duplicate of #6, but the information is wrong. This isn't published by the library or the government. It was published by F.E. Platt in New York on June 10, 1910. The title is listed in italics correctly, but Google Books got the title wrong. It's The Commercial Guide and Business Directory of Porto Rico. >>>>>>>>> FIXED. This was fixed between Imzadi and Mercy as I recall. Anyway, it's fixed now.
  13. Duplicate of #8. >>>>>>>>> FIXED. Same notes as reply to #8 above. No argument or debate here. If anyone considered this unreliable and/or self-published,,, problems are now solved per edit summary.
The point of my comments is to help you learn some good practices. I'm trying to help you. When I did the GAN review, that came with the offer to help fix the article for a renomination. The article was edited only 3 times since it was nominated (and failed) and Admrboltz tagged it. One was a fix to {{jct}} transclusion and two were to insert the rock slide incident. Let us help you, and this article could be not just a B-Class article, but a GA-Class Good Article, which is better. Puerto Rico doesn't have any highway GAs yet, but it could. Imzadi 1979 → 05:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think, correct me if I am wrong Imz, that the notes next to the number correspond to the ref numbers. So bullet 1 here is related to Ref 1 in the article. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, each number above is the footnote number, in this revision. Imzadi 1979 → 23:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. CANT FIND ALTERNATE

2. FIXED

3. FIXED

4. I DON'T LIKE FOOBAR'S - EASILY BROKEN

5. FIXED

6. FIXED

7. FIXED

8. SPS IS ALL THAT'S OUT THERE

9. CANT FIND ALTERNATE

10. FIXED

11. DITTO ON FOOBARS

12. FIXED

13. FIXED

14. SPS IS ALL THAT'S OUT THERE

Mercy11 (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand me on 4, 11, and 14. I've switched the article to used named references. By naming them like I did, the exact same reference is reused. You won't have to retype everything every time. Imzadi 1979 → 05:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about the junction list. Are these exits numbered? According to Google Maps, they aren't. Yahoo Maps doesn't show any numbers either. If they're not there, you need to remove them from the table. Several of these junctions aren't exits according to the online mapping sites. One last thing, but your table is upside down. Ponce should be at the top, and Arecibo should be at the bottom. The USRD standard is to start at the southern or western end at the top of the table and continue to the northern or eastern end. That way the lowest distance and exit numbers are at the top and the highest are at the bottom, in general. Imzadi 1979 → 09:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a typo; they are just intersections, listed sequentially. Now fixed. Mercy11 (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question: Does "Ponce should be at the top, and Arecibo should be at the bottom. The USRD standard is to start at the southern or western end at the top of the table and continue to the northern or eastern end" also applies to the junction list in the infobox??? Right now that junction list reads North (Arecibo) at the top and Ponce (South) at the bottom. The table and the Route Description both read South-to-North (Ponce to Arecibo). Maybe we should make the junction list in the infobox to read South-to-North also, for consistency. Comments? Also, can you post some links to your "online mapping sites"? I am thinking I could use such info to verify article info correctness. Thx, Mercy11 (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Road shield for PR-139

[edit]

The mini road shield for PR-139 in this PR-10 article is not displaying properly. Maybe someone knows how to fix that becuase I tried and I can't. Mercy11 (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I purged the image on Commons and purged this page. That seems to have done the trick now. Imzadi 1979 → 04:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Junction list cleanup

[edit]

A couple comments are in order.

  1. There is a notes column. Use it instead of trying to force explanatory comments into {{jct}}.
  2. In {{jct}}, the name parameter is for the street/road/freeway name of the intersecting road. It is not for locations. I attempted to fix this, but I'm sure I made mistakes. Please fix them if I did.
  3. The template can incorporate up to 4 cities. Ideally no more than that should ever be necessary in a table to prevent clutter. Pick the main control city for each direction and leave the rest out. (If there were a second intersecting highway at the junction, that's when the third and fourth city usually get used.)
  4. Mulitiple non-concurrent roads can be listed for the same junction by using a line break <br/>.
  5. The template now has a location parameter that works just like the city parameter. The difference is that it won't generate the automatic link to [[<city>, <state>]]. This is useful for major lakes, major bridges, etc. that are listed as control "cities" on the signs. The two parameters are mutually exclusive, so the numbers have to be different like |city1= |location2= not |city1= |location1=.
  6. Combine the same junction together into one row. There's no need, and in fact it violates MOS:RJL, to separate the junction into two table rows based on direction when they're part of the same junction. If further explanation is needed, use the notes column.
  7. The Interstates in Puerto Rico are not signed. They shouldn't be included with markers in the Destinations column. I've moved them into the Notes column instead. Those of us roadgeeks know about the unsigned Interstates, the average public does not.

I hope you find these comments useful. Imzadi 1979 → 20:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Frankly, I have been struggling with this for several days now. I would like to create a bulletproof table, but I am not sure how to fit the Puerto Rico roads panorama into the current {{jct}} system. For example, how do we deal with differentiating between sectors (sub-barrios), barrios, villages, towns, cities, and municipalities (they are like counties) for the benefit of the reader? And then multiply that by a factor of 2 for route numbers, and streets/avenues/etc with no route numbers? And then multiply that confusion by another factor of 2 for directions (N/S/E/W), etc that is also info that a reader may want to have. This has been discouraging. I don't know where to start. Looks difficult, maybe even impossible with the current tools. It seems to me we are trying to fit the info into the tool; when it should be the other way around, and the tool should be an instrument to accomodate the road information in a predictable format and in a coherent fashion that is pleasurable refering back to. Mercy11 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'll admit that I'm now confused here about what's confusing you. Let me ask a few things here to see if I can get a better understanding so we can clear this all up. {{jct}} has support for up to four destinations using one of two methods. The first method is city1, city2, city3, city 4 which takes the input (say "San Juan") and appends the "state" name (in this case Puerto Rico) and makes a link to San Juan. The second method is location1, location2, location3, location 4 which just accepts an input. I use this method when I need to link to the "control city" of Mackinac Bridge in Michigan by inputing [[Mackinac Bridge]] as one of the locations. One thing to note is that if you define city1, the next item has to be either city2 or location2, and it will appear second in the list.
    Next thing, but what do the signs at the junctions say? If the sign lists a barrio, village, town or city, then that's what I'd use on the {{jct}} formatting. You'll have to figure out if you can use use the city style of inputs or insert a formatted link using location to get the links to work.
    As for municipalites, {{jcttop}} can display the right column headers for PR. {{jctint|state=PR}}, but you can also code the top of the table by hand as well. Imzadi 1979 → 03:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happens is that some roads that intersect PR-10 will lead to other cities - alright - but some will just lead to barrios. Also, in some instances the barrios are in another municipality. I know this is not uncommon (if you are, say, in Florida but close to the Georgia stateline, you are likely to see signs that will point to "Town Such-and Such, GA"). So I just need to know how to do that, that is, how to incorporate cities into the table (using that jct template) when the destinations are cities, how to incorporate barrios into the table (using the jct template) when destinations are barrios, how to incorporate sectors/communities into the table (using teh jct template) when the destinations are sectors/communities, and how to incorporate streets/avenues/roads/public ways/etc into the table (using the jct template) if that is all that a sign will say. And such jct template needs to be flexible because some signs may have a mix of these (road, city, community) listed in the same one sign/exit. To compound, the jct template seems to generate an automated link to the right wikepidia article as it appends the PR part, but then how about barrios? Barrios (example, Portugues) also have wikipedia articles and ideally should also be linked in the background, just like cities. Ideally, the jct template should be flexible enough to provide for these in a consistent, structured fashion.
I know I have the information about what leads to where, in what direction, and how many miles away, etc. But I can't get that jct template to do it right. Hope this answered your question. Mercy11 (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical photo

[edit]
  • "Can you tell me, is the section of roadway shown in the 1920 either now part of PR-10, or was it part of PR-10 at some point? Is it now part of PR-123, or just a former part of PR-10? From the caption, we're lead to believe that it was already a former section of PR-123 in ca. 1920, which would surprise me a bit because Wisconsin and Michigan were the first states in the US, and first jurisdictions in the world to sign their roadways with highway marker signs in 1918–19."
  • You've misunderstood that comment 100%. Wisconsin was the first jurisdiction in the world to assign numbers to its highways. Michigan was the second. Before this point, roads were just named, many of them as part of auto trails. The question I want to know is this: "In 1920, what was that stretch of road called?" Your caption makes it sound like it was, in 1920, a former section of PR-123. How can it be a former section of a highway whose number wasn't assigned yet? That's the problem with that caption. Imzadi 1979 → 21:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, the first name (which is on the picture, but in Spanish) was, The Ponce-Adjuntas Road. Then it seems to have become Road No. 6, at least for a while. (when? I don't know). And it may have been named Military Road No.6. After that it became PR-10. Since 1974, some portions of it (progressively, that is, as the new PR-10 is built) have become PR-123. So today it is signed either PR-10 and PR-123, depending on where (what km-post)on the road you are. Hope this helps. Mercy11 (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the caption should read something like "The Ponce–Adjuntas Road in 1920, now a former section of PR-10" or "The Ponce–Adjuntas Road in 1920, now a section of PR-123 bypassed by PR-10". Imzadi 1979 → 22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the clarification w/o making it too verbose or convoluted. The details can be left to the body of the article. The body of the article could use further work to transition from one road signing to another. As I was saying before, the signs can change a million times, but the (old PR-10) road remains the same: The road (in the pic) has always been where it was engineered to be over 100 years ago. I will try not to be too blunt in saying this, but since the article is about a certain road, and not about a certain road sign, I have put my focus on the road itself - that structure that was designed over a century ago - and not on which road had what sign (imo, that's pretty irrelevant, but you are free to think differently). This article is about PR-10, not about PR-123. Understandably, PR-123 (or, "the old PR-10") is "tied" to this article, but only for two reasons (1) the gov't has re-used the PR-10 number of the old road for this road (but, again, this is a rather irrelevant fact in itself, it's just that it needs to be explained in the article to avoid/clarify any potential confusion), and (2)the road using the PR-10 number is being built parallel to the old PR-123 (which in itself says that "PR-10 is, to an extent, replacing PR-123"). imo, we should keep this in mind every time we edit the article, so that intrinsically PR-123 facts do not make their way into this PR-10 article if not absolutely required. Stuff about PR-123 should be put in the PR-123 article. I am not a fan of that pic; it could cause confusion. I propose it be taken out altogether, and used in the PR-123 instead. Mercy11 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then you need to make a decision here. If this article is to be about PR-10, make it about PR-10. If it is about the Ponce–Adjuntas Road, then move the article to that title and make it about that. Yes, you're right that details about PR-123 have to be covered here because what is now PR-123 was PR-10. You've blurred the lines between the two so much though. If this is about PR-10, then drop out the stuff that isn't needed.
Here is my approach using a Michigan example to explain my thought processes on an article I will be overhauling in the future. If you look at the road that follows the shoreline of Lake Michigan in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, you'll see that it is currently designated US 2. That designation dates back to November 11, 1926. Before that, it was M-12 after c. July 1, 1919. Before that, it was a series of local county roads that the state paid the counties to maintain c. 1913–1919. Long before all of those, it was part of the Sault – Green Bay Trail, a Native American foot trail.
The US 2 article's history section (which will come after the route description) will start out with some comments on the Indian trail. Then it will have some brief comments about the M-12 history. (M-12 was only signed after 1919, but the designation was used on the gov't log books in the 1913–1919 timeframe.) M-12 actually has its own article because in 1926, M-12 wasn't completely replaced by US 2. (Some sections are now M-69 or M-95). After I cover those basics, the rest of the history section will be about US 2. When was it shifted around to new routings in sections? When did they reroute part of it onto a new freeway? When was it truncated and removed from that freeway? In other words, provide some background on what preceded US 2 but focus on the road we know today as US 2 since it was called US 2.
You keep calling PR-123 "old PR-10" which only confuses things. With stuff like this to figure out and fix, this article is far from GA-Class, but it has a lot of potential. Keep up the good work, and before long the article will be deserving a renomination. Imzadi 1979 → 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now that you understand the situation I am dealing with we can start making progress. Ah, & -btw- PR did have its roads numbered years before those early 1910s years you attribute to michigan wisconsin, etc. Maybe michigan and wisconsin had the first signs up, Maybe. But as for numbering, PR roads were numbered many years before even 1913. This is well documented in federal registers; it's a fact. Check it out in any decent library. At best, the michigan/wisc duo had the first signs, Maybe, but even that would be doubtful. Mercy11 (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many jurisdictions may have numbered their roads internally for inventory purposes, some in the 1890s, but Wisconsin is acknowledged by most historians to have had the first posted highway signs in 1918. Michigan is also acknowledged by the same historians as being the second jurisdiction in the world to have posted numerical highway signs in 1919. The Michigan State Highway Department numbered their state highways internally since 1913-14, if not sooner. (The department was founded in 1905.) I understand that you're extremely proud of your island, and that's commendable, but I know the facts on this issue, and Puerto Rico is not the first on this. Please stop trying to inflate PR's standing when it doesn't matter on this situation. Imzadi 1979 → 05:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!,,,pride and inflation have nothing to do with this. Fact is we have been talking about two different things; I said it before: you were talking about signs of the roads, while I was talking about road numbering. Frankly I gave you the additional PR info above in case in could help your knowledge, research, interest, or what have you. Whatever you did with you was up to you,,, but the last thing I could had imagined would be the only thing you could do with it was accuse of inflating information -- when facts are facts. Even if you chose to dilute and diminish the importance of road numbering (whether on its own merit or as compared to the importance of road signing), it doesn't matter to me: facts speak for themselves. If I wanted to be argumentative as you have chosen to be, I would point you to the same argument you are making, but in reverse: that wisconsin and the others "may have signed their roads internally but for service purposes", this would include snow removal and road repairs by crews. Again, I included the PR info for your benefit, and inflated nothing. Facts speak for themselves. On the contrary, inflating facts would include speculating, as you did, about the REASON why a jurisdiction may have numbered it roads ("internally for inventory purposes") where none has been authoritatively given. That, I would be careful about. Mercy11 (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imzadi, I was hoping this didn't turn into a Michigan/Wisconsin discussion, which it sort of did. Since this article is to be about PR-10, I have made it about PR-10, dropping out the stuff that isn't needed. I have covered PR-123 only to the extend that what is now PR-123 was PR-10 before. I believe thie current version clearly marks the line between the two roads so that there is no longer the possibility of any confusion. Let me know if you agree. Mercy11 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Puerto Rico Highway 10/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –Grondemar 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Working Will aim to complete this review in the next few days. –Grondemar 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to review this; things kept coming up every time I tried to review it. I'm still working on completing the review, but I have a few comments:

  • One thing I've wondered for some time that maybe you can clarify: what are the significance of the different road sign shield designs? Major highways appear to be on blue shields with white text, while more minor highways are either on white shields with black text or blue pentagons with yellow texts. Is there a significance to this? From driving in Puerto Rico I've seen the same numbered highway switch sign designs after crossing a major highway such as PR-2.
  • Sorry about the delay; I was away on a trip. In any event, I am not sure I understand your question entirely, but will venture answering. If I misunderstood it, please advise: Please check this HERE. If this does not entirely answer your question, check my comment HERE. (My emphasis: "If there is something that PR roads seem to be notorious for, is the lack of an uniform, enduring, permanent standard way for road signs, particularly road route numbers.") If still unanswered, please let me know. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may interject, Grondemar, the different highway markers signify different classes of roads. It is similar, but not completely analogous, to Interstates, US highways, state highways, and county highways. Rather than giving it a different route number when the road type changes, Puerto Rico keeps the number and changes the sign. –Fredddie™ 03:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been busier than I thought I would be over the past few weeks, and haven't had a chance to proceed much further with the copyediting. I apologize for the delay, and will see if I can get moving on this by the end of the week. –Grondemar 03:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the third paragraph from the lead, as I couldn't think of a good way to rephrase it that didn't excessively duplicate the second paragraph and it seemed superfluous.
  • "Upon completion the highway will become one of the two major roads"—a link to the other road would help here. I assume you're refering to PR-52? Does PR-30 technically cross the mountains?
  • History section: I'm confused about the scope of the article. There's a lot of detail here about PR-123 that appears to duplicate that article. The article also gets very confusing as it discusses how PR-123 was the old PR-10; I'm still not sure if there's a section of road which is both PR-10 and PR-123 today from reading the article. I'd recommend cutting a bit here, simply mentioning the existence of the old road, the basic background, and then why the need for a new road was identified. Elements such as where PR-10 and PR-123 run together today can be discussed later in the route description.
  • It might be better to move the Cost, Travel time, and Environmental concerns sections out of History and into another header, maybe Construction? Since the road is still under construction these sections don't really refer to "History".
  • The quote at the beginning of the Route description section: the source it comes from was published in 1910, but the modern road was not even begun until the 1970s. Please review.
  • The Route description section is under-referenced; in general, there should be a reference for each paragraph, at the end.
  • In the Junction list, it might be helpful to list exit numbers for the controlled-access portion of the highway, and to clearly indicate where the concurrency with PR-123 is.

I'm sorry, but I can't pass this article as a Good Article at this time. I took on and made some copyedits, but the structural issues identified above should be corrected before the prose can really be cleaned up. Since I believe that it will take longer than the normal hold period to fix these issues, I have unfortunately to fail this review at this time. I apologize for how long it took for me to finish this review.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  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:

Thank you. –Grondemar 03:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent updates

[edit]

I converted the junction list to use the templates. The locations within the municipalities will need to be added, as well as missing distances. In the future, the templates will likely be set to generate a mile column to the right of the current km column with converted values automatically filled in.

I also updated all of the citations to use the citation templates for consistency in output formatting. There is one that is missing a translated version of the Spanish title, and it would help if a native speaker could do the translation for footnote 11:

"Inspeccionan proyectos en construcción en el área sur" (in Spanish). El Oriental. July 7, 2011. Retrieved July 7, 2011.

The remainder of my edits were minor changes to supply the missing conversions of distances in the text of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 23:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puerto_Rico_Highway_10&oldid=1196858173"