Talk:Utah State Route 201/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
A good article on my first read, but is it a Good Article?
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- 1a. The first mention of a US Highway (US-89) is abbreviated, when it should be spelled out with the abbreviation in parentheses after it. Interstate Highways aren't abbreviated. They should be done in the same manner for consistency sake.
"Signs along the route claimsthe path of the highway is the historical route of the California Trail, Pony Express and Lincoln Highway." The extra "s" needs to be dropped.
The prose could use some tweaking to avoid starting sentences with a number, "2100 South in Salt Lake County became an unnumbered state highway in the 1910s." vs. say "In the 1910s, 2100 South in Salt Lake County was an unnumbered state highway."
1b. The abbreviation in the lead sentence should be bolded, but the bolding in the jct list should be removed, except for the table header, per MOS:BOLD.
- 1a. The first mention of a US Highway (US-89) is abbreviated, when it should be spelled out with the abbreviation in parentheses after it. Interstate Highways aren't abbreviated. They should be done in the same manner for consistency sake.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- 2b Ok, I'm torn on Ref 7. Technically, it is a self-published source, but the article is only using it for the photograph. I'd leave it in the article, but expand out the information on the reference (original URL vs. archived URL, archive date, format the author name to match the other references, etc.) The references should also be audited to make sure that they are all using the same date formatting, extra wikilinking is removed, full access dates are included, access dates for all online sources, etc.
2c Technically, the sentence about the Kennecott Smokestack is OR, since it doesn't have a source for that tidbit.
- 2b Ok, I'm torn on Ref 7. Technically, it is a self-published source, but the article is only using it for the photograph. I'd leave it in the article, but expand out the information on the reference (original URL vs. archived URL, archive date, format the author name to match the other references, etc.) The references should also be audited to make sure that they are all using the same date formatting, extra wikilinking is removed, full access dates are included, access dates for all online sources, etc.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Overall, the article is good, it could just use a few tweaks. I'll hold it for now so that these suggestions can be addressed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, I believe all your concerns have been addressed (except the bold text in the jct list; it seems the text is bold by default). Thank you for your thorough review. And again, thanks for reviewing this at this date! CL (T · C) — 04:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- I got the bolding. The "!" at the beginning of those two lines made the whole line bold and centered. I just had to change it to a "|" and center the text. Having fixed that, the article passes.Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, I believe all your concerns have been addressed (except the bold text in the jct list; it seems the text is bold by default). Thank you for your thorough review. And again, thanks for reviewing this at this date! CL (T · C) — 04:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Overall, the article is good, it could just use a few tweaks. I'll hold it for now so that these suggestions can be addressed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
