Talk:Port Miami Tunnel/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the article is unsourced, especially in the top of the "Overview" section.

Done, trust me it's all sourced it just didn't have enough footnotes because they were bare URL's, now that the references are proper they can be applied everywhere they are used with an inline citation. Trust me this is a huge project for the area, it's well covered, and really, it's just beginning, it's not even 1/4 way into construction and look how much there already is. I am not just trying to get it really good for now to earn the GA status and then leave it, which often is what happens, I actually want it to be very informative and up to date when people read it. I have completely "taken over" and rewritten this article from what it was last December, slowly adding more and more to it, and as I realized it was becoming an exceptional entry, I decided to give GA a shot. If I kept at it like I am now, it could probably be a featured article by 2014. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but this is bound to be an issue if this article becomes an FAC.--12george1 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"$1 billion dollar project" - I am 100% sure that it is USD, so change it to "$1 billion (USD [link USD]) project"

Done

"3/4 mile" - Provide a conversion to kilometres.

Done, exact length is obviously unknown, 3,900 feet the newest number I've heard

"due to financial difficulties due to the economic crisis," - "Economic crisis", which "economic crisis"? Wikilink to which "economic crissis" because it currently goes to economic crisis in general.

Done, thank you I had no idea that wansn't more properly linked

"$3.1 billion USD (this figure seems completely wrong)" - remove "(this figure seems completely wrong)"

~~Long story on that, it was here before I touched the article. Will look into it.~~Done.

"40 feet in diameter." - Convert 40 feet to metres. Also convert 43 foot to metres

Once again exact diameter of a hole dug through limestone is not precise, but will convert both.

All but two of the references are in bare URL style. Add the information including the title, author, publisher, date, and accessdate.

Yes, thank you, I have always just done the bare URL style up until now because it's the most common and it's easiest, but I need to start doing it the right way anyway. All the access dates will be today.

Okay now I see why I've been doing it the simple way like everyone else, the right way is much more complicated and requires going back and forth. Give me some time I'm busy with my real life stuff right now, but would really like to get this to a good article. I'm glad the problems are easily fixable. I look forward to doing it but am busy dealing with the unfun part of window cleaning right now. I wish someone else who is fluent in the different types of references could do it, or help.

Reference #6 is still a "bare URL"--12george1 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I meant to say Reference #10--12george1 (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have more issues, but I will let you address the above problems first.--12george1 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all the references that are news sources, I'm done for today. I don't know what to use for the other sources. Now that I think about it, won't cite news work for all of them? Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the other issues I had are very minor, so I will fix them myself. Anyway, fix Reference #6 #10 and I will pass.--12george1 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I believe the article now meets the GA criteria. So I will be passing this article. Congratulations,--12george1 (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boondoggle[edit]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/23/2281988/give-bicyclists-space.html http://seshippingnews.typepad.com/south_east_shipping_news/2009/12/miami-tunnel-threatened-again-as--sec-orders-miami-to-turn-over-its-financial-books------------miami-dade-county-corruption-e.html

Hippie blog calls POM tunnel article "extensive"[edit]

http://eyeonmiami.blogspot.com/2011/09/stop-port-of-miami-tunnel-now-by.html

With reference to it not (yet) mentioning some grassroots controversy over polymers to be used in the grouting process, though I believe I just read that it was all pretty much going to be regular Portland cement. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]