Toolbox |
---|
Mitchell Freeway ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
{{
Infobox Australian road}}
instead of {{
Infobox road}}
. While I am not against the use of {{
Infobox road}}
as a concept, the template requires further work to customise it for Australian roads, and I'd rather not bring up the issue here considering what happened last time it was raised. As far as I am aware, {{
Infobox Australian road}}
is compliant with the MOS.Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Comments:
Thanks for reviewing the article. I have made changes to fix all the issues above. - Evad37 ( talk) 03:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply |
Review by Fredddie
|
---|
First off, I'd like to welcome you to ACR. If you're not aware, I like to divide up my reviews the same way the article is split. I'll then go over each line and make sure the prose is tight. Sometimes I will just have a question that may or may not inspire you to clarify something written. I'll post the whole thing once I'm done. – Fredddie ™ 03:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
|
Support. Looks good. – Fredddie ™ 18:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm trying not to review every article that comes through here, so I'll just do an image review for now. If needed I'll pick up the third review, but I'll see if someone gets it.
Review done, no issues found. -- Rs chen 7754 07:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Review by Nbound
|
---|
|
Support - The few issues not addressed in earlier reviews have been addressed. Consider the addition of the extension map a comment or potential guidance for even further improvement. -- Nbound ( talk) 11:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Spotcheck by Rschen7754 |
---|
Making a drive-by comment - the citation for the length of the road really should go in the infobox, not in the lead. While there's nothing specifically prohibiting citations in the lead, they're typically frowned upon when the lead summarizes information found elsewhere in the article. -- Rs chen 7754 09:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Also, the last paragraph of 1.2 is a bit long - can it be broken up? -- Rs chen 7754 09:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply
After some discussion I've agreed to take up the spotcheck (hopefully I'll have it up today or tomorrow). How these work is we pick 25% of the sources (with a 20 source limit), to check for verifiability and plagiarism. If sources are not online, we ask for any electronic copies over email; if they are not available that way (it's a book, for example) that's fine. It seems that most of your sources are electronic though. After the spotcheck is done the article will be promoted. Reference formatting isn't my strength, but I know enough so that whatever issues are left should be easily fixable at FAC. General formatting notes:
|
Toolbox |
---|
Mitchell Freeway ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
{{
Infobox Australian road}}
instead of {{
Infobox road}}
. While I am not against the use of {{
Infobox road}}
as a concept, the template requires further work to customise it for Australian roads, and I'd rather not bring up the issue here considering what happened last time it was raised. As far as I am aware, {{
Infobox Australian road}}
is compliant with the MOS.Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Comments:
Thanks for reviewing the article. I have made changes to fix all the issues above. - Evad37 ( talk) 03:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply |
Review by Fredddie
|
---|
First off, I'd like to welcome you to ACR. If you're not aware, I like to divide up my reviews the same way the article is split. I'll then go over each line and make sure the prose is tight. Sometimes I will just have a question that may or may not inspire you to clarify something written. I'll post the whole thing once I'm done. – Fredddie ™ 03:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
|
Support. Looks good. – Fredddie ™ 18:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm trying not to review every article that comes through here, so I'll just do an image review for now. If needed I'll pick up the third review, but I'll see if someone gets it.
Review done, no issues found. -- Rs chen 7754 07:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Review by Nbound
|
---|
|
Support - The few issues not addressed in earlier reviews have been addressed. Consider the addition of the extension map a comment or potential guidance for even further improvement. -- Nbound ( talk) 11:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Spotcheck by Rschen7754 |
---|
Making a drive-by comment - the citation for the length of the road really should go in the infobox, not in the lead. While there's nothing specifically prohibiting citations in the lead, they're typically frowned upon when the lead summarizes information found elsewhere in the article. -- Rs chen 7754 09:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Also, the last paragraph of 1.2 is a bit long - can it be broken up? -- Rs chen 7754 09:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply
After some discussion I've agreed to take up the spotcheck (hopefully I'll have it up today or tomorrow). How these work is we pick 25% of the sources (with a 20 source limit), to check for verifiability and plagiarism. If sources are not online, we ask for any electronic copies over email; if they are not available that way (it's a book, for example) that's fine. It seems that most of your sources are electronic though. After the spotcheck is done the article will be promoted. Reference formatting isn't my strength, but I know enough so that whatever issues are left should be easily fixable at FAC. General formatting notes:
|