Talk:Ipswich Road, Colchester/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 23:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, I will be engaging in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article for Good Article status within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr. Blofeld, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it meets the most of the criteria outlined for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that should first be addressed. It has been a privilege to review this article and I look forward to your feedback. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): 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 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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

First and foremost, this article needs Template:Infobox road

Disagree, an infobox is never compulsory, and in this case it looked better without it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I share Blofeld's view that an infobox should only be used when there is an obvious requirement that the reader would want to look up a small amount of data in a table as a priority. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede is stands alone as a concise overview of the article. The lead defines the road, establishes context for the road, explains why the road is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the road.
The image of the road is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and is suitable for use in this article.
The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Route

In the route description, there should be some mention of topography. Does it traverse hilly terrain for most of its route? Is its terrain flat? Is it rural? Is it urban? Is it both? Is it wooded? A simple inline citation to a topographic map and one sentence encompassing the terrain traversed by the road would easily accomplish this.

I really don't think this will add anything - it's not like ~~Jeremy Clarkson~~Chris Evans is going to drive a Bugatti Veyron up it and say "look at the terrain on this" is it? It's all urban Colchester, which the article already says. If a reliable and independent source (which a map isn't, otherwise my local dump would be notable!) has something, we could use it, but I don't think there's anything. I found a forum that said the gradient was challenging to Colchester Half Marathon runners, but nothing else. I've dropped a note about the half marathon in this section. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The street plan is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here.
East Saxons can be wiki-linked to Kingdom of Essex.

Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the mainline is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and is suitable for use here, as is the use of the plaque image which is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0.
Instead of using the general term "Unemployment relief project," was there a specific agency or program in the UK similar to the Works Progress Administration that can be mentioned by name here? This isn't a deal breaker, but it would be beneficial to be as specific as possible for readers interested in this subject.

The source doesn't say. I have a government transcript that says the 1933 bypass was constructed by the Colchester Corporation, which is as expected (road transport was a local government matter until the Trunk Road act in 1936). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Landmarks

The image of the Rovers The is licensed as CC BY-SA 2.0 and is therefore suitable for use here, as is the use of the image of St John's Church which is also licensed as CC BY-SA 2.0.
This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Overall

All images will require alt citations. Since this has become a thing, I've been trying to remain cognizant of it, especially for possible future FA purposes.

I can never remember to do these :-/ ... should be done now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, none of us remember to do these because they are ridiculous! Alright Ritchie333 and Dr. Blofeld, I've re-reviewed the article and your responses to my above comments and questions and I feel that all my concerns have been sufficiently addressed. For consistency's sake, I still assess the article to need a road info box, but that is certainly not a deal breaker for Good Article status, so I'll digress. Thank you both for all your hard work on this article, and for your continued stellar contributions to Wikipedia. It's always a privilege reviewing your articles! -- West Virginian (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers West Virginian.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can't put this in my "super-saves" AfD -> GA slot as I raised (and withdrew) the original debate. Ah well. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]