Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Not listed There is consensus here that the article does not at this time meet the Good article criteria. There are plenty of suggestions for improvement presented here. Once these are addressed nominate it at WP:GAN AIRcorn (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself, from the last time it had been reviewed for GA, appears quite fit now for the GA for me. Also, most members of the Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines would want at least another GA page under their scope. Imeoneta03 (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is far from the GA standard; large portions are uncited and MOS deficiencies are everywhere. --Rschen7754 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose promotion—I agree that it isn't close to GA standard yet. Many of the points from the original GAN review in August are still left unaddressed. Some of them don't directly impact the GA criteria, but without them, the article isn't "good".
  • Headings are still in Title Case, not Sentence case. For example, "Route Description" should be "Route description" and "Traffic Management" should be "Traffic management" per the MOS. Not a GA item, but it still shows sloppy attention to detail and a lack of engagement on an easy fix from four months ago.
  • The lengths as adjectives issue was sorted out, but now there are lengths in the text without conversions. Do not assume that your audience excludes Americans.
  • The junction list table does not need "mi" and "km" in each cell of the table if those are the labels for those columns. It still needs reformatting to comply with the MOS
  • There are still non-reliable sources (in the Wikipedia-defined use of the term) in use in the article. Namely, footnotes 6 and 13 are to another wiki and to a blog, respectively. Footnote 6 looks like a mirror of an earlier version of this article, which is especially problematic.
  • The only footnotes in the RD section are in the last paragraph of the Traffic management subsection. RDs are usually the easiest sections of a highway article to source because any good paper map plus the satellite view on a decent online mapping service can be used for all of the major details. Failure to address this point from the original GAN review, which does impact one of the GA criteria is a major failing.
  • There are source names that should appear in italics in their citations, and one that appears in italics that should not.
    • Philippine Daily Inquirer is either a newspaper in print, or the name of a news website; as a publication name it would be italicized.
    • GMA News should not be in italics as the name of a television network. TV networks are the publisher, and any specific programs they air would be the "work". As an example, citing 60 Minutes, a news program aired on CBS in the United States, the program gets the italics while the network does not.
  • The "notable incidents and accidents" section was removed, which makes this less comprehensive in terms of content. If those events are truly notable, they need to be reinserted, maybe as a part of the history section.
  • Given the above issues, the article still fails criteria 2a, 2b, 3a. I haven't read through the prose to see if its quality has improved, but again, given sourcing/research failures, it's pointless to polish prose that may need to be rewritten to comply with research and content requirements expected of a GA. Imzadi 1979 → 22:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The lack of referencing in many sections stands out for me. My advice is to treat this like a peer review and work on the changes (including those brought up at the previous GAN). It is unlikely to be overturned here even if these issues are addressed as it will ultimately need a full Good article review. Once you have worked on the article a bit nominate it at WP:GAN and you will hopefully get a good review (the road project is pretty good at taking these on so you shouldn't have to wait too long). AIRcorn (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. The article itself is not yet good at the time, and based on the text, I think it requires a copyeditting. Kj plma (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]