Talk:Interstate 82/GA1

GA Review

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 (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
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):
Can we get images?
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

GA Criterion 2

Merge the map references into one ref, and reuse it.
McNary Highway #70 - Cite?
The original designation for I-84 was I-80N, but was renumbered in 1980 as part of a mandate to eliminate suffixed routes. - Cite?
the longest concrete arch in North America, spanning 549 feet (167 m) long across the creek. - Cite?

I added references to all of these. Also, it turns out that the Fred Redmon Bridge was the longest concrete arch in North America at the time of it's opening.[1] So I fixed it. I found some referneces from ODOT for McNary Highway 70, and found a Utah Department of Transporation reference for I-84 (got it from Interstate 84 (west) page). ~~ ĈĠ890100^{Review me!} 17:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy issue: I am fairly certain this freeway is not busier than US 26 or OR217 in the Portland area, so is the line supposed to be fifth busiest interstate? I'm not sure how the numbers were calculated from the PDFs used as references, otherwise I would fix it myself. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right! I'll change it to the fifth busiest Interstate. ~~ ĈĠ890100^{Review me!} 14:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

Not bad, but I'm still spotting some areas for improvement.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The list of proposed extensions in the History section should be turned into prose. Under WP:MOSBOLD, wikilinks should never be in bold. Some of the bolded terms should not be in bold as they don't redirect to this article. Also that list should not have bold in it.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Is there a way to link directly to the WA laws cited instead of including the whole text of the section as the citation. Shouldn't the infobox also have the law link like other WA highways as well?
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:
In addition to the above issues, the infobox should have the browser moved up, and the maintenance links added. I'd also suggest the map_notes being added to the infobox as well. Let me know when these issues are corrected so I can remove my objections as the second opinion review.

Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finished all of these corrections, unbolded links, made list of proposed route into paragraph, changed refs in History section to link, put rcw link in infobox, and added map_notes. ~~ ĈĠ (☺ - Review!) ^Simple? 23:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objections corrected. I'll clear it for passage from my end. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you going to pass this GA, or should I get Admrboltz? ~~ ĈĠ (☺ - Review!) ^Simple? 00:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't unilaterally pass it. I believe he has to come back and see that his issues are cleared too. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing. --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2008 (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.