Talk:Delaware Route 24/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 15:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing route articles seems to be all the rage these days, so I'll give this one a shot later tonight. There appear to be no obvious reasons for quickfail or problems with external links, so I should be good to go! There does seem to be an issue with a link that redirects back to the article, but that is easily taken care of. Canadian Paul 15:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:

Under "Route description", first paragraph, "The road heads through agricultural areas with some woods and homes, curving to the northeast." This sentence needs to clarify its relationship with the one before it ie. Does it head through agricultural areas while the route heads east on Sharptown Road ("The road heads through agricultural areas with some woods and homes in this stretch" or something similar) or after ("The road then heads through..." or something similar)? Same problem with the sentence following this one - it needs to connect with the previous one for sentence flow (Is Laurel part of the area with the agriculture and homes or is it a different stretch?) Connectors need to be added in some places so that the text resembles a narrative more than a listing of facts.

Other than that, it does appear to meet the GA Criteria, although I had to go through and do a copyedit of the material. I will put the article on hold for up to seven days to allow for changes to be made. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 20:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I have made the fix. Dough 48 72 23:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to go now, so I will be passing this as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for all your work! Canadian Paul 14:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]