I made one grammar change to this article last week, and have since read through it several times to try to get the true sense of it, My conclusion: It is a disjointed and confusing read for a non-local. My suggestion: Needs review by someone with local knowledge to get the grammar, sequence, and structure right without compromising accuracy. I will watch this space with interest, and will help if I can. Cheers. Downsize43 (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking an interest, Downsize43. Is there any way you could be a bit more specific? I would like to improve the article, but it's a bit hard to fix something if I can't really understand the problem. - Evad37 [talk] 10:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi! Happy to be of service, I hope.
- First - some high school writing principles that I find invaluable:
- Only one idea per paragraph
- Avoid overly long and/or complex sentences
- No more than five or six sentences per paragraph
- While not suggesting that this article seriously breaches any of these principles, there is some scope for improvement.
- Some general comments:
- The lede seems overlong, and includes some almost verbatim text from the body of the article
- Some of the sub-section headings in the History section could be expanded to include a time frame, eg. "New construction in the 1950s"
- Avoid using the article name as a section etc heading, eg. perhaps "Redesignation as Forrest Highway"
- Consider reducing or removing the descriptions of the effect of the Forrest Highway improvements on the South Western Highway
- Consider reducing or removing the Old Coast Road section
NOTE: While browsing the article to write this I got brave and made some minor changes.Downsize43 (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for you spelling and grammer fixes. In reply to your general comments:
- I've tried to tighten up the lead, but three paragraphs is appropriate for an article of this size, per Wikipedia:Writing better articles#The_rest_of_the_lead_section
- I've adjusted some of the section headings, let me know what you think
- Changed to "Forrest Highway after opening", since the content of that section is the history since the opening
- I think that it is important to show that impact of the highway, as discussed by sources specifically relating the impacts to the the opening of Forrest Highway. Three sentences discussing this does not seem disproportionate to me.
- I merged Old Coast Road here due to the significant overlap of the histories, and the description of these former sections of the Perth–Bunbury route seems appropriate to mention in the context of the current Perth–Bunbury route. This is not unprecedented, including related routes below the junction list is quite common for U.S. roads.
- Please let me know if you have any other suggestions, or want to discuss these points further. - Evad37 [talk] 04:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the new headings. I will give it a good read sometime over the weekend.Downsize43 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Downsize43: were you planning on leaving any other comments? --Rschen7754 03:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No.Downsize43 (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|