# Talk:Saskatchewan Highway 1

It appears that the "official" main route is the bypass. The Controlled Access Highways Regulations include "Provincial Highway No. 1 from the Manitoba boundary to the Alberta boundary", which wouldn't make sense if Highway 1 went through downtown. --NE2 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Placed this high priority article into double peer review, as it was suggested that it may be done.  Looking to improve the quality of Canada/ Saskatchewan road related articles, to at least good if not feature status.  Any help appreciated.  SriMesh | talk 18:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
See below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
References belong after punctuation, e.g. "This is a sentence.[1]"
 Done. Had checked this before putting up for nomination with auto peer reviewer, but some text got added en route. So now is checked, and fixed.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
I would consider eliminating the usage of blockquotes in the Origin and History sections. As it stands, the quotes selected and set aside in the article aren't necessarily notable in and of themselves, and could easily be integrated into summarized prose. See WP:QUOTE.
 Did a summary of quotes in origin section, moved quotes out of history section and into community prose where other community history was. Will also re-read and double check for flow.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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): 
Could use more than one blurry image of a wind turbine, but for GA purposes I won't say this holds the article back. A map would be most useful.
 Added map and added more pictures as well.

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Section 1
Is the fact that "kilometer per hour" (as in "110 kilometer per hour") isn't plural intentional?
 This was previously a part of article, and I missed it, tis now corrected.

"Ranch lands, the Missouri Coteau topographical area and rolling prairie agricultural plains are traversed across Saskatchewan." - slightly confusing... use active tense, a la "Highway 1 traverses ranch lands, the Missouri Coteau topographical area..."
 Thank you will try to remember this cool grammar correction for the future.

When using {{convert}}, ensure the units are rounded correctly, e.g. {{convert|2.4|mi|km|1}} yields 2.4 miles (3.9 km). Some more of these are needed, btw.
 Thanks I fixed all these to give a decimal on conversion.

$1.4 billion (1962) should have an inflation-adjusted equivalent.
 Well....I used the same 1963 currency ration used by the British Transport Police in their current article about the Great Train Robbery (1963) as I didn't know how to do the inflation adjustment otherwise.

try web address: [1]. A brilliant site, just be careful how you enter the amount. I have used it from the 1200s. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I make it $95928222075 but it is worth a recheck before you add to the article. the note at here is worth a look at. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 20:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Avoid external links in articles (1926 Saskatchewan Map) - in this case, probably better to use {{cite map}} directly.
The citation was there, so deleted the external link.

Trans–Canada and other dashes implying transition should be converted to en-dashes.
 Looked at the article about Dash and copy and pasted all the en dashes of the En dash section so I hope this is right?!?!  Re did this update using the insertion of &ndashplus-a-semicolon (Thank You)  SriMesh | talk 04:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Twinning" should be either wikilinked, or explained - I think only the UK uses that term outside of Canada.
 This term, twinning for the divided highway or the Dual-carriageway roads is used a lot by our provincial government highway ministers. so it is now wiki linked.

"There are a number of communities along this highway." -- kind of obvious, would remove.
 done - removed.

As I'm reading this, I'm thinking a cursory (brief, very brief) explanation of what a Rural Municipality is would be appreciated.
 Done after first instance that rural municipality is mentioned in prose, it is defined.

Some assorted spacing issues between periods and paragraphs.
 did a control find for period spacing and fixed paragraph spacing as well.

"boasting a population of 32,132." -- I would reword that.
 done - Moose Jaw sentence reworded.

Geophysical features section needs to be broken into smaller paragraphs.
 fixed this section into paragraphs.  Will re-read again to double check flow.


### Conclusion
Really, it boils down mostly to formatting issues. The Communities section was pretty well integrated with history from each community, but in this case I think it's appropriate - just take care that it doesn't detract from the fact the highway should be the main focus. The article could really use a map, and more images. Good luck! —Rob (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


### Reply
Added comments to above GAN review, with check marks to show that items were worked on and how they were attended to.  Thank you for your time to read the article and comment.  Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done a little bit of cleanup, but it's really hard to see the code. There are still some references in some really odd places (middle of a sentence instead of the end, for example, and on the wrong side of punctuation. You might want to take an edit to flatten {{citation}} tags, by making them as small as possible so that the code is readable when you're editing it (remove unused parameters, line breaks). I'll see what I can do for some of this later. —Rob (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 flattened citations to try to help out and edited citations removing unused parameters.   Thanks again.SriMesh | talk 04:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ratonale for citations placement.  Put a help me on my talk page to see if there was a way to do the population of towns and their citations differently so a fact tag wouldn't get placed for those stats.  Did the citations in the middle of the sentence, if there were two citations for the same sentence. Added the population, as the population of a hamlet/village/town/city would determine if there was gas/hotel/restaurant/services available at that location.  IE Cities provide all services 24/7, towns and villages limited services and limited hours rather a working week but not all night or not in evenings also  and hamlets, and unincorporated areas possibly services but probably not.  So tis good to gas up in the city if traveling into the evening or night.  Kind Regards... again  SriMesh | talk 05:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
All right, I went ahead and put all of the census figures (as many as I could find, anyways) at the end of sentence, usually next to the post office refs. I think that's acceptable for MOS purposes. Let me know what you think of the edits. —Rob (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh Thank you!  It does make it much easier to read.  and it seems to fix my help me problem too.  Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I think it meets the GA criteria now. Could use another copyedit from someone focused on prose. —Rob (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)