Talk:Interstate 440 (North Carolina)/GA2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 01:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am Reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
There is a clarification needed maintenance template on this article. The issues it raises will need to be dealt with. Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Jayron 32 19:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
The following references are problematic:
Ref #35 is dead.

Took care of #35. It appears stories that old from the N&O are archived behind a paywall. Since URLs are not required for paper sources anyways, I just removed it. --Jayron 32 19:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refs #8 & #9 (both unc.edu) - I am not sure what entire maps of the NC highways prove? Please hep me understand this referencing. Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the maps and the statements they are referencing. These are official NC State Highway Maps that show the routing of the state highway system. Both of those maps show the progress of the construction of I-440, which can be confirmed by looking at the area around Raleigh, where the progress of the road is clearly visible. It looks fine by me, reliable maps are perfectly legit sources for stuff like this, we have a {{cite map}} template and Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles for guidance. If there is a more specific issue I can fix, I'd be glad to. --Jayron 32 19:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: Thanks for the fixes. Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Ah ok, now that all makes sense - thanks for your explanation.

This is a fine point/personal thought and not necessary as part of the GA criteria: For someone who comes to the subject matter and this article not knowing much about it (like, say, me, or any reader unfamiliar with WP articles on Interstate highways etc), could a note/explanation re [what these maps prove] be added to the ref? Otherwise folks will make the same mistake I did - not understanding why these big maps of the entire highway system in 1961 and 1963 are being used as references... Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, any decent map citation should include the grid section(s) or inset that's being cited, just as we should never omit the page number within a book that contains the cited information. Now, if the map lacks sections, we can't include that detail in the citation. I will note that a pair of map citations, showing the before and after conditions connected to a change is a standard practice used on hundreds of highway articles, including several dozen featured articles. Imzadi 1979 → 22:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I just admit my ignorance, having hardly worked on any road articles in the course of my WP-editing journey. Always glad to learn new things, thanks for the info. Shearonink (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool, no issues found. Shearonink (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Straightforward article about a straightforward subject. Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No edit warring found. Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The referencing issues should be fixed. Shearonink (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This Review will be finished pending one last deep/proofreading readthrough. The above concern re: the highway maps (Refs # 8 & 9) is a going-forward/possible improvement outside the GA Review criteria. Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks to the recent editing help I've gotten in the course of this GA Review. Greatly appreciated User:Jayron32 & User:Fnlayson. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.