Talk:Interstate 82/GA2
GA Reassessment
[edit]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.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Fails criterion 3 - seems really short, signaling that it may not discuss the main aspects of the topic adequately.
- (Most of) The AADT details are unnecessary for the article, failing criterion 3b.
- There is way too much citing. I saw several sentences with three citations. There was even one with four - in the lead, which typically doesn't have any citations at all. Other USRD editors find ways to avoid that. It makes the article look messy, and borders on a WP:SYNTH violation.
- A route description of just over 2 paragraphs for ~124 miles doesn't look good either.
- The {{expand}} on the article is a quick-fail criterion as well.
- Combine the Google Maps citations - your divisions for that are arbitrary.
- "Sinks, James. "Eastern Oregon waits for new highway". The Bulletin (The Bulletin)." - date?
I'm putting the article on hold for seven days before delisting it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- While I agree with most of the above feedback, some of these issues are over and above the Good Article Criteria, that should be the basis of the review. As such, I think some points should be rephrased as feedback for further improvement. IMO, the two most important issues brought up are the fixit tag at the top of the article, and the sourcing of non-controversial details in the lead, as these are violations of the linked policies. Regarding the AADT point, I agree that the AADT data in this article is overkill. I usually just list the most traveled and maybe the least traveled sections. However, I don't see how one could say that AADT data is unnecessary to a highway article. I think that was phrased incorrectly.Dave (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It has been a week with none of these issues addressed. Therefore, I am going to demote the article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
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.