Talk:A5758 road/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grondemar (talk · contribs) 14:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working I will aim to complete this review in the next couple of days; in the interim, here is an initial observation:

At 1920x1080 resolution the article text is squashed between the images which is not ideal. I recommend moving File:A5758_01.jpg to the Route section to help alleviate.

Thanks. –Grondemar 14:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again for taking a month to get back to this! I made several copyedits to the text; please review as occasionally I might inadvertently insert something that is correct in American English but not quite correct in British English. I have the following concerns that need to be addressed before I can declare this review passed:

I inserted a few {{cn}} tags where needed; please review and add sources as appropriate.

Of the two, one of them I resolved straight away and agreed it was something that needed attention, but the other one I have removed as you put it after text which quoted a proposed construction period when the road was actually built - thus, the fact the road was built when proposed is itself verification of the initial proposal. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with saying that the rest of the article text supports that statement is that the text doesn't actually support the statement. Source 10 and the text it supports imply that the original plan was for all of the construction to take place in 2014—if the expected completion date [was] in the final quarter of 2014, why would construction [be] proposed to take place throughout 2014–15? –Grondemar 22:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a report from September 2013 that gives a clear indication of their initial construction proposals, thus have taken this data and amended the article as appropriate. Hopefully is satisfies your concern on this matter. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence in the Construction section: Contractors Balfour Beatty marked out the route of the bypass in October 2013 offering the first glimpse of where the road would be built, following completion of the land acquisition after a public inquiry held in October 2012 raised two objections to the compulsory purchase order needed to acquire the land to build on. The sentence jumps backward chronologically to 2012 after the last section ended in 2013; it also ends in a preposition. Could it be rephrased, and perhaps the second part moved to the previous section and given more context? Done. Phil roc^{My contribs} 15:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased the sentence to better fit what the source said regarding order of events and cause-and-effect; let me know if you have any objection. –Grondemar 22:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph, first sentence in the Route section: The route is constructed as a 10 metre wide, two lane single carriageway with 1-metre-wide (3.3 ft) hardstrips and a 2.5-metre-wide (8.2 ft) verge, with a 50-mile-per-hour (80 km/h) speed limit. Check consistency of hyphen usage as well as whether metric or imperial units should be primary. Done. Phil roc^{My contribs} 15:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~First paragraph, second sentence in the Route section: I added a couple of red links to terms with which I was not familiar. Could you link to appropriate articles or clarify?~~ Done. Phil roc^{My contribs} 15:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Second paragraph, second sentence in the Route section: Why is Northern Perimeter Road bolded?~~ Done. Phil roc^{My contribs} 15:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence in the Operation section: it seems extraordinary that a newly-constructed road would need repair five months into its service life. Any further investigation into or reason for the repair?

Unfortunately there seems to be little further info on this; I can't see anything on the council's own website and no details have since emerged, though I suspect it was minor given the road only closed during the night. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text should be provided for all images; please add.

I have added alt to one of the images, but the rest have been done by Philroc. I don't know if this is strictly GA-criteria though. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold for a minimum of seven days to allow the above issues to be addressed.

Thanks again for your patience. –Grondemar 18:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the points have been addressed earlier today by Philroc, though I have looked at some of your other points and amended or commented where appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle and Philroc: Thanks for swiftly addressing my concerns above. I just have one final issue that requires attention before this review can be passed; see above. –Grondemar 22:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from KJP1 (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Roads are absolutely not my specialism, but what I find odd about this article is that nowhere does it tell me where, in broad terms, the road actually is. Looking at the first ten roads in the A roads box at the bottom of this article, A5-A59 inclusive; in each case the first line of the lede tells me the road is in England, that it's in a reasonably commonly-known region, e.g. the North-West, or county, e.g. Yorkshire, or that it joins two major towns. In this case, neither the infobox, nor the lede, nor indeed the whole of the article, tells me where the road actually is. Unless I happen to know which area Sefton Council administers. I wonder if this makes the article a touch localist? KJP1 (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a major, long road that joins towns together - it is a road that is in effect a by-pass to a heavily used junction. The lead does say the locality: "and linking the A565 road in Thornton to Switch Island junction. The road is officially named the A5758 Broom's Cross Road, with Broom's Cross being the site of a medieval wayside cross near Thornton". I could, perhaps, add some wider geographical information to be more precise. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely get it's a by-pass that doesn't link major centres. Just think something like "in the North-West of England", or "Merseyside" would give people a better idea of locale. I live in the NW and I've never heard of Switch Island! KJP1 (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: Thanks for your comment; good catch. I added in northern Merseyside, England to the first sentence in the lead; hopefully that satisfies your concern. –Grondemar 22:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does. Much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the above, I removed "northern" as it's technically more central Merseyside, but simply saying Merseyside is sufficient. I have also added a more precise and sourceable date for the construction period proposal. Please advise if you consider anything further to be an issue. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me now; thank you for addressing my concerns. I am now happy to

pass this good article nomination. Congratulations! –Grondemar 22:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]