Talk:Puerto Rico Highway 10/GA2

GA Review

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

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

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

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)

• 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)

• Thanks for the clarification. –Grondemar 03:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• The article definitely needs a thorough copyedit. I started on the lead, and will work through the article; it may take me some time to complete, however. –Grondemar 23:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• :-) Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)