Talk:Sherwood Park Freeway/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 13:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this one in a day or two. Canadian Paul 13:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Just a few comments:

I think that the caption on the image could be improved: e.g. what is the context of the map that the highway is highlighted on (the whole city? just a certain freeway system or region?)? From what year is the map?
Under "Route description", first paragraph: "Sherwood Park Freeway is a short suburban freeway..." "Short" is a subjective assessment; what is short to one individual may not be to another. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, if that is a statement in a source, then it should be cited directly. Otherwise, just list the length and let the reader decide if it is short or not.
Same paragraph: "Now between the Morris Industrial area to the north and the Weir Industrial area to the south..." I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the word "now" in this sentence. Are you comparing it to something in the past? If so, that should be explicit.
Under "History", first paragraph: "It was four lanes wide and included all of the present day interchanges..." Per WP:DATED, is there a way to rephrase this sentence so that the statement ("present day interchanges") won't date?
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not introduce material that is not present in the body of the article. Pretty much the entire first paragraph is not mentioned in the body and it should include more information from the "Route description" section as well. The final sentence of the second paragraph is also not mentioned in the body. Once all that material is included in the body, you should probably migrate the citations as well, since the lead should generally not contain citations (since it's not introducing new information).

I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page often, so I should notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 23:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short is not subjective, it is the shortest numbered freeway in Alberta and that can be determined from the progress chart which is referenced. Aside from that, I'd mention that dating the map in the infobox is not something I see done on any highway article, nor the need to specify that the map is of Edmonton. I took the caption from featured articles here and here which do no such thing. -- Acefitt 00:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadian Paul: Changes made. -- Acefitt 20:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Short" is indeed subjective, but "the shortest numbered freeway in Alberta" is not, so if that could be cited, it would have been fine. As for dating the map, a) it was an example intended to indicate the way a caption could be made to be more informative to help clarify my comment, not something that absolutely, positively had to be done and b) Featured Articles are not "Perfect Articles" so using them as a benchmark without citing a policy or project guidelines is not particularly useful. Regardless, sufficient changes have been made to the article so that it now appears to meet the GA criteria, so I am going to go ahead and pass the article. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian Paul 02:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadian Paul: Thanks, I didn't mean to cite those FA's as policy, but given that there is no policy I was merely using them to suggest why I captioned it as I did. -- Acefitt 03:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]