Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A1 (Croatia)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:49, 6 September 2011 [1].

A1 (Croatia)[edit]

Featured article candidates/A1 (Croatia)/archive1

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article satisfies all FA criteria, provides concise and comprehensive information on the topic, and by now its history includes a DYK, a PR, a WP:HWY PR and a successful GAN, therefore I am nominating it for featured article. Tomobe03 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory look doesn't result in any obvious issues; hope to do a full review soon. --Rs chen 7754 20:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article still needs some significant work on its prose. A few examples from the lead:

"Apart from Zagreb and Split, the A1 motorway runs near a number of major Croatian cities ...". What is "apart from" intended to mean here? "As well as"?
"National significance of the motorway is reflected through its positive economic impact on the cities and towns it connects ...". Unidiomatic. Better would be something like "The motorway's national significance is reflected through ...", except for the fact that reflections aren't seen through anything. "Reflected in"?
"... however its genuine importance as a transit route shall be achieved upon completion of the Adriatic–Ionian motorway ...". Why have you opted for "shall" here?
"The motorway consists of two traffic lanes and an emergency lane in each driving direction ...". More idiomatic than driving direction would be "carriageway".
"... two bridges comprising spans of 200 meters (660 ft) or more." So both bridges are made up of 200-meter spans?
"... a public loan was started in order to collect sufficient funds for its construction." How do you "start a loan"? And why "in order to" rather than just "to"?
"Zagreb–Split section of the route was completed by 2005 ...". Missing "the", as in "The Zagreb–Split section".
"... while the first sections between Split and Dubrovnik opened in 2007 and 2008". So these were completed at the same time as the Zagreb–Split section two years earlier?
"Construction costs incurred so far amount to 3 billion euro." When is "so far"? As of 2011?
"... provides either access to several national parks or nature parks and world heritage sites and numerous resorts". "Either" distinguishes between two alternatives, not three.

In addition there are numerous breaches of the MoS in terms of the use of dashes, which are not even used consistently throughout the article. One example is "Autocesta Rijeka – Zagreb" vs. "Autocesta Rijeka–Zagreb". If you can manage to recruit a good copyeditor then I'm confident the work needed could be done within the span of an FAC, but right now I don't even think the article meets the GA prose requirement, much less FA's. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for FA:

The lead seems a little long, some information may need to be cut as to make it a summary of the article.
The picture in the lead should be removed as it looks tacky.
Are references needed in the lead? Is the information being referenced unique to that point in the article?
"scenic" is a peacock term and should not be used in the article.
Citation needed for "The other major tunnels on the A1 motorway are the 2,300-meter (7,500 ft) long Plasina Tunnel situated between Otočac and Perušić interchanges and the Grič, Brinje and Konjsko tunnels. Lengths of the latter three range between 1,122 meters (3,681 ft) and 1,542 meters (5,059 ft)."
"At some point after 2012, the A7 motorway is planned to be completed between Rijeka and Žuta Lokva (near Brinje), and a directional T interchange shall replace the trumpet interchange built at Žuta Lokva. The new interchange shall not feature any weaving, similar to the Bosiljevo 2 interchange of the A1 and A6 motorways", the use of shall sounds awkward here, try another word. Dough 48 72 02:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Despite describing many locatable places (service areas, tunnels, junctions, bridges, viaducts, end-points), the article contains only one set of coordinates; and they're approximate, for a section that hasn't yet been built. The omission of coordinates is contrary to criterion 1(b) "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context".
A number of non-English place- and company-names should be marked up with {{Lang}}
Repeated instances of "Facilities found at X rest area comprise" are redundant in a table, and should be removed, using a column header of "facilities" instead of "notes".
The presence of ATMs and rest rooms are trivia and should be removed per WP:NOT.
the phrase "the motorway is tolled using [...] vehicle classification in Croatia" is nonsensical.
The two tables should be merged, or the duplicate rest area entries removed from the exit list table.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first objection is not actionable - the use of coordinates on highway articles is highly controversial. See WT:RJL and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. --Rs chen 7754 20:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion where Karanacs said "You are welcome to put forth your argument in individual FAC nominations where you think coordinates ought to be applied, and the nominator can then respond", you mean? That small number of editors a vocally opposed to including coordinates is not disputed; that doesn't mean that FAs should be passed without them; per 1(b) cited above. After all, WP:RJL permits them. Or were you referring to the former venue, where, on 21 August, you said ""Yeah, I agree that coordinates [...] should be among the "finishing touches" of an A-class or a FA" " (If you're going to claim that's "out of context", please explain it in context). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is moot, because Karanacs quite clearly said "As a delegate, I am not going to fail any article that does not include it." That being said, I don't think this is going to pass FAC for other (legitimate) reasons, so this discussion is moot in that regard too. --Rs chen 7754 02:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as I don't feel this article currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

Find a good copy-editor, per Malleus
Check the article carefully against the Manual of Style. I see issues with WP:HYPHEN/WP:DASH, WP:MOSNUM, WP:OVERLINK and others
Work with the article's layout to prevent issues like sandwiching of text
Review the tables to ensure that all material needs to be included - some of it does seem like trivia, particularly in the exit lists
Provide page numbers in citations to multi-page sources
check citation formatting for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article could benefit from a thorough A-class review. I've looked at a few of Malleus' points, and quite frankly, the few I looked at were valid concerns. The problem is... WP:HWY currently has no A-class review. We've been brainstorming about how to fix this in the roads IRC channel and hopefully we'll start getting proposals up soon. --Rs chen 7754 02:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that this is an interesting and informative article, nothing to be ashamed of: I certainly couldn't have written it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm seeing this more as a failure of the system, rather than a failure of the editor. --Rs chen 7754 03:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal for now. An A-Class review forum or proposal should be offered up soon. This article could use the polishing and scrutiny of a good PR/ACR session before renomination. Imzadi 1979 → 02:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable to me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.