Talk:Interstate 90/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've seen this article progress recently, and I'm quite optimistic that third time is the charm for it. Comments coming shortly. Imzadi 1979 → 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
All good here. There's a few comments below on some points.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
This is a good summary of the highlights of a very long multi-state Interstate Highway.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Looks good here
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Just the usual article improvements here.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All good for the imagery. Another photo or two for the History section might be nice, if hard to come by, just to break up the section visually.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Just holding for some minor copyedits.

Lead:

"Washington State Route 519" in the lead, but just "State Route 519" in the RD mini-lead. If there's a specific reason for the inconsistency, no worries, if not, harmony might be better.
- Fixed the RD uses.
The second paragraph jumps from Washington state to the Great Lakes region. It would be better to put a sentence in between mentioning that I-90 crosses the northern Great Plains to bridge that gap.
- Ok, after reading through the RD, Homestake Pass is in Montana, yet that sentence in the lead makes it sound as if it's in Washington state. A little c/e here just to clear that up would help, and then a mention of the Plains as well.
  - Rewrote the paragraph to be a bit more detailed.
Otherwise the lead and infobox look good for content.

Route description

"Montana has the longest section of I-90, at almost 552 miles (888 km), but is not completely crossed by the highway." This sentence reads awkwardly to me. I know that you mean by it though because I-90 doesn't exit Montana into the Dakotas.
- Reworded to "only serving a portion of the state's east–west width", though I might change it later if I can think of something smoother.
Personally, I would refer to sections of concurrent highway in the singular and not the plural. While there are multiple designations involved, it's still a single roadway. In various references, I'd also use the slash form to join the concurrent designations together, "I-39/US 51" instead of "I-39 and US 51" to reinforce this singular nature.
- Fixed, except in cases where there are separate but parallel roadways (e.g. I-80/90 and I-94).
The Dead Man's Curve citations probably should be within the parentheses to clarify that they apply to that content and not really to the rest of the sentence. One footnote there should be sufficient as well.
- Fixed.

History

Overall, the section reads well. It might help to insert some subheadings just so that this section isn't a single wall of text. I didn't see anything in here that needs adjusting to meet the GA criteria.
- Divided the section, but it's not as neat as I would have liked. Will look at retooling it again in a bit.
I would change the reference to the federal government creating the US Highway System though. It was a product of AASHO at the time. The Joint Board on Interstate Highways would be more like a modern commission tasked with studying something that recommended AASHO and the states take the actions they did.
- Reworded to "at the suggestion of the federal government"

Names and designations

My only quibble is that it can look bad to have three footnotes at the end of a sentence. Usually that's a sign that an editor is trying to over-reinforce a point, but in this case, it's just that you have triplets of states doing something in concert. In short, just be aware of this potential concern if taking this article farther up the assessment ladder.
- Broke up the clumps.

Major intersections and Auxiliary routes

References

There are a few stylistic comments I'd make on the footnotes if this were a nomination at ACR or FAC. For GAN, they look good.
As noted in the checklist, they all pass the RS test.
- I wouldn't mind some extra feedback on citations, though I'm not sure I'll have time to polish this up for ACR/FAC for a while. Sounder Bruce 06:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]