Talk:Forrest Highway/GA1

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

Reviewer: Moswento (talk · contribs) 09:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello! I'll have a look at this one. Full review will magically appear below soon. Take care, Moswento ^talky 09:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overalls

• Overall, this is a really nice article. Hardly any problems with the prose, the added video and audio media is great, the referencing looks solid, and there's nothing obvious missing. I do have a few queries on the text in the History section, below, mostly about my hesitance regarding criterion 3b (unnecessary detail). Once you've addressed these comments, I would be happy to promote to GA. Keep up the good work! Moswento ^talky 15:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History

• You introduce Main Roads at the end of the first paragraph, but wikilink their full name in the third paragraph. These should be switched.

  Actually, it's linked in the route description section, so I just removed the link from the third paragraph (per WP:OVERLINK) - Evad37 [talk] 17:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "had decreased by 60%, a significant reduction" - I don't think "a signifant reduction" is needed here

  Removed - Evad37 [talk] 17:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To me, the environmental paragraph is teetering on the edge of excessive detail, compared with the length of the history section overall. I would consider (but not insist on) cutting, for example:
  • "The survey would be repeated prior to construction"
  • "The EPA concluded that the road could be designed and managed to an acceptable standard." - don't we take this as a given?
  • "described as best management practices"
  • "(covering dust, noise, and vibrations)"

  Agreed, I've cut all of the above - Evad37 [talk] 17:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• On a similar note: "Specific plans were developed regarding fauna, vegetation, dieback and weeds, and revegetation and rehabilitation. Other areas with specific plans included topsoil management, drainage, construction (covering dust, noise, and vibrations), foreshores, and both Aboriginal and European heritage" - Do we need separate descriptions of their 2000 and 2006 plans, where the areas covered are the same? (revegetation, drainage etc.)

  I've removed the repetitive items, but left those not covered in 2000 - Evad37 [talk] 17:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Moswento: Thanks for your review, I've addressed the points you raised above - Evad37 [talk] 17:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent-o! I'm now very happy to promote this to GA. Congratulations! Moswento ^talky 09:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]