The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Eisenhower Tunnel
This ACR is being closed early. The nominator is not a major contributor to the article in question, and did not secure the permission of the major contributors. An ACR can be reopened when the major contributors agree to nominate it, or to allow a third-party to make the nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 00:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Eisenhower Tunnel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
- Nominator's comments: a well-written article that could rise higher in ranks
- Nominated by: -- P C B 23:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 02:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comments: Article is generally well-written, but has some issues:
- "The department of transportation noted that prior to the retrofit, about 20,000 vehicles per year tripped the alarm." Which DOT noted this, CDOT or USDOT? Also needs a citation.
- The next two sentences make reference to the opinions of the "trucking industry". Who was saying this on behalf of the industry? An industry group/trucker's association? Which one?
- The entire first paragraph of "Alternate route" has no references. Especially problematic because height information for Loveland Pass is included in there.
- The women's-rights thing occurred before the tunnels were finished, but it's discussed after the tunnel's completion. Consider restructuring this section to more closely follow chronological order.
- The ending of the article seems lacking in general. Part of this is related to the non-chronological order that the History section is in, but it also ends at a weird point. Has anything else happened since the tunnel was opened—any notable incidents, for example?
- A general copyedit is needed to fix minor issues like missing commas. Sentence flow could use a few tweaks too.
- If these issues are fixed, I would consider recommending the article for A-Class. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comments - I have some concerns before I can support this article for A-class:
- In the infobox, is it necessary to have a parameter that indicates the tunnel has no tolls?
- The lead of the article looks a little short and could include a little bit more historical information.
- For the length of the tunnel, I think feet may be a more appropriate unit than miles.
- "The trucking industry lobbied the Colorado Department of Transportation, CDOT, to increase the vertical clearance of the tunnel.", CDOT should be in parentheses.
- "it is now possible for trucks 13.92 feet (4.24 m) to navigate the tunnel" add "high" after height.
- After the feet or after the meters? Putting "high" after the meters looks a bit awkward. -- P C B 03:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of the Alternate route section needs a citation.
- An inflation conversion is needed for $42 million. --- Dough 48 72 02:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Eisenhower Tunnel
This ACR is being closed early. The nominator is not a major contributor to the article in question, and did not secure the permission of the major contributors. An ACR can be reopened when the major contributors agree to nominate it, or to allow a third-party to make the nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 00:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Eisenhower Tunnel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
- Nominator's comments: a well-written article that could rise higher in ranks
- Nominated by: -- P C B 23:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 02:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comments: Article is generally well-written, but has some issues:
- "The department of transportation noted that prior to the retrofit, about 20,000 vehicles per year tripped the alarm." Which DOT noted this, CDOT or USDOT? Also needs a citation.
- The next two sentences make reference to the opinions of the "trucking industry". Who was saying this on behalf of the industry? An industry group/trucker's association? Which one?
- The entire first paragraph of "Alternate route" has no references. Especially problematic because height information for Loveland Pass is included in there.
- The women's-rights thing occurred before the tunnels were finished, but it's discussed after the tunnel's completion. Consider restructuring this section to more closely follow chronological order.
- The ending of the article seems lacking in general. Part of this is related to the non-chronological order that the History section is in, but it also ends at a weird point. Has anything else happened since the tunnel was opened—any notable incidents, for example?
- A general copyedit is needed to fix minor issues like missing commas. Sentence flow could use a few tweaks too.
- If these issues are fixed, I would consider recommending the article for A-Class. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comments - I have some concerns before I can support this article for A-class:
- In the infobox, is it necessary to have a parameter that indicates the tunnel has no tolls?
- The lead of the article looks a little short and could include a little bit more historical information.
- For the length of the tunnel, I think feet may be a more appropriate unit than miles.
- "The trucking industry lobbied the Colorado Department of Transportation, CDOT, to increase the vertical clearance of the tunnel.", CDOT should be in parentheses.
- "it is now possible for trucks 13.92 feet (4.24 m) to navigate the tunnel" add "high" after height.
- After the feet or after the meters? Putting "high" after the meters looks a bit awkward. -- P C B 03:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of the Alternate route section needs a citation.
- An inflation conversion is needed for $42 million. --- Dough 48 72 02:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.