Talk:M54 motorway/GA1

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I would change could've to "could have", but that's about it.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   "and has only two lanes for the majority of its length." - I'm assuming this means two lanes in each direction? Or is this assumption incorrect? What conditions caused the breakup of concrete on the M54 after only two years? The "Impact" section is largely positive... were there any negative impacts from the road, or protests regarding its construction? Is the entire length of the road a dual carriageway?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   See comment about negatives impacts above.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Looks quite good! —Rob (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! As for the impact, I don't actually think there was any protests or anything. It is largely seen as needed, as it removed all of the through-traffic which was causing havoc through Telford. It is two lanes each way for the majority of the length, how could I clarify this? Just say it's dual-carriageway instead? I'll have a look at the concrete break up thing. I'll get on fixing these things soon. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added a negative impact (air quality), I can't find any other negatives though. Also clarified the intro (with the lanes thing), and replaced the could've. Hope that addresses everything, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've crossed out the addressed concerns. I still would like to know what sort of technical disaster would befall concrete that would require a repaving not two years after the start of service. :-) —Rob (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I double checked the source and it seems it broke up because they built it with inflexibile concrete upon a mined/unstable area initially. God knows why they did that. Probably tight on the money! Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that explains it. Bad surveying. Thanks for looking that up! —Rob (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I've taken the liberty of updating the GA template so it links to this page and specifies it's a transport article. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)