Talk:Delaware State Route System/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 19:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article. My strategy is to give overall comments about the article, then go through it section by section, check all the references, and finally to check it against the Good Article criteria. I'll let the nominator know when I'm ready for their response. Rcsprinter123 (comment) @ 19:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Overall comments[edit]
Created, written and nominated in one day, this article does look strong at first glance, and I can see it passing easily, with its author experienced and well used to producing GA-standard articles. There are a number of sections, all well-wikilinked and illustrated and relevant to the subject, and following the structure which is standard for this category of article. For references, there seems to be an adequate number, backed up with some further reading, so the content is largely verifiable. Checklinks reports no dead links, which is fine.
Section analysis[edit]
After the review has been conducted, editors addressing the article may mark individual points below off by placing {{done}} after the item.
- Infobox
- Is there no map of the state routes available, in the style of eg File:Washington state highways.svg?
- Put in a request for a map at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Requests. Dough4872 21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Lead
- "little white signs at intersections" - best phrase available?
- "Improvements continue to be made to the system." this is quite broad. Needs specifying or removing.
- Numbering
- Perhaps you could say why "Delaware does not prohibit duplication between route numbers of different systems" (and give a source)
- In the caption of this image, Wyoming ought to be linked or changed to "Wyoming, Delaware" to avoid confusion with the state
- Highway systems
- Any chance File:Delaware Byways.png could be a little bigger? And maybe vectorised?
- "known for their scenic [...] qualities" - what does "known for" mean? Don't want no weasel
- History
- This section could maybe be subdivided a little
- "In the 18th century, the King's Highway ran between.." - no clue what the King's Highway is, and unsourced
- I think Highway Gothic is a typeface, not a font
- "with completion of the highway in 2018" - what about the completion? The sentence needs a verb.
No other issues
References[edit]
All references checked for reliability, deadness, and backing up the claim; no issues found.
@Dough4872: When the issues listed above are fixed, we can look at the GA criteria. There are so few problems that I'm not even putting the review on hold. Rcsprinter123 (cajole) @ 19:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I have replied above. Dough4872 21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I see the King's Highway part now, apologies. I think we are just waiting for the state map before this passes, then. Rcsprinter123 (rhapsodise) @ 11:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Checklist[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused (see summary style):
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Looks like this passes all the criteria. Nomination passed! Rcsprinter123 (reason) @ 20:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)