Talk:Loop Parkway/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 01:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article came up for review at WP:GAN. The following list will help to break down how the article matches up to the GA criteria.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I have a couple of concerns with the prose that make the article a little difficult to read. Notably, the last two paragraphs of the Construction section are quite choppy and full of short sentences, making them difficult to read. They should be reworded to increase sentence fluency. Also reading awkwardly: "All three men shot Corleone and flew back via car...", what's meant by they flew back via car? Is "fled" the word we're looking for here? One more note: the first paragraph of the tolls section indicate that the two parkways initially had tolls set at 25 cents, but the second paragraph then says that in 1975 the tolls were raised from 10 cents to 25 cents. As it reads, this currently makes no sense.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References all look to be active and reliable sources. Everything is sourced quite well.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
This article covers many facets of the topic without getting too broad. Very nice.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Appears to meet WP:NPOV, I don't see any violation of the point of view policies.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Edit history indicates stability. No real recent changes as of late.
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):
Images are all free, and used adequately.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'm going to put this on hold, pending some slight revision. The sentence fluency issues I wouldn't call a dealbreaker for GA status, but the other two issues are confusing and currently keep this article from meeting criterion 1a. The hold time should allow for these issues to be fixed, at which time I'll pass the article once the issues are repaired.

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 01:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbed the small sentence problem. I clarified the wording, but I will find a source for the reduction in the morning. Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 02:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Once that sourcing is fixed, I'd say that will do it. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 15:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And re-reading the source, I made an error, clarified as a result. Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 18:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I'd say we're ready to pass this article, then. I'll go ahead and set the status. Well done. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 00:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]