Jump to content

Talk:North Carolina Highway 54/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 08:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments coming up... Imzadi 1979 → 08:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'll note in my comments below any additional suggestions, which aren't strictly required to meet the GA criteria, but those that are meant to make sure that the resulting GA is actually a good article.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See below for specific prose comments
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    But see below for ways to enhance the presentation of your citations. Also, there are issues with the research that need to be fixed, resulting in OR-related concerns.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    You have too many extraneous details in places that need to be excised, and yet you have places where there aren't enough details, or at least information isn't presented well.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
    You should add a caption to the map using |map_notes= in the infobox.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I've debated the initial outcome of my review. I'll give you 7 days, but this article needs serious work to avoid failing. Imzadi 1979 → 10:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: this is an area not really covered by the GA criteria, which only care if they sources used are reliable.

  • Given how many footnotes you have, it might be best if you used {{reflist|30em}} so that they can appear in multiple columns.
  • FN2 should have the author linked and not the publisher.
  • All of the scanned maps cited should note their scales. A best practice when citing a map is to note this information except on variable-scale maps like Google's. If the map doesn't note what its scale is, |scale=Scale not given is an option. If the map doesn't have the scale information printed on it, but a library record gives the scale, enclose the information in brackets, and use "c." for any approximations. You can convert map scales given as "1 inch = 10 miles" to the ratio by doing the math to figure out how many inches are in 10 miles, or "1:633,600" (10 mi x 5280 ft/mi x 12 in/ft = 633,600).
    • For example, on FN3: |scale=[1:696,960]] (if only known from the library record) or |scale=1:696,960 (if the scale were printed on the map someplace in a numerical format of some kind).
  • You can also give credit to the website that's republished the maps to enhance the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT-ness of the citation. For example, on FN3,

|via=University of North Carolina University Libraries (even wikilinking the university name on the first usage).

  • Map citations should also give the city of publication, just like a book, using |location=.
  • All map citations should note the map sections or insets being cited, just as we'd include the pages of a book being cited. Also like a book that lacks page numbers, if the map lacks a section grid, we can't include the in-source location being cited.
  • FN 20 should have |link=no added so that the wikilink to Google is suppressed the second time {{google maps}} is used to craft a citation. Per the idea behind WP:OVERLINK, you only need to link the first usage, not every usage, in footnotes.
  • For FN 17, I'd cite that with |publisher=City of Morrisville, NC rather than use the website address as a website name. The access date shouldn't be in that ISO-style format if the other footnotes aren't using it.
  • FN 18 should give the city of publication and the TV station's call letters as the |location= and |publisher= respectively, even if you want to note that their website is named WRAL.com. When in doubt, the city where the station is located, and not its city of license, would be the |location=. The reporter should be listed as the author as well.
  • FN 19 should include the publication location for the paper. It's a best practice to include that detail separately unless the name of the newspaper includes the city, such as The New York Times (published in New York), but for something like Daily News, I'd always need to include |location=New York.

That all said, your sources are reliable and meet the requirements of GA- or FA-level citation needs. I'd suggest giving them a polish though, as mentioned above.

Prose review: breaking this down by section—

  • Lead
    • "55-mile-long" should have the metric conversion, which you can do with {{convert|55|mi|km|adj=mid|-long}} to give: "55-mile-long (89 km)".
    • Somewhere, you should slip in a mention that this is a state highway in the US. I know where NC is, but non-American readers won't.
    • Spell out and link to US 70 on first usage. Then you can abbreviate all of the other US Highways in the rest of the article, even on first usage by number.
    • "runs concurrent" in this case, the second word should be the adverb form, but you used the adjective. Also, link the verb and adverb to the article, like "runs concurrently".
    • A personal preference, but you should use the fuller links to highways, not "US 15 (NC)" so that readers unsure of what is meant can hover their cursors over the link and get "U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina" to appear in the tool tip if they missed the US 70 reference a few sentences prior. Also, it's better to repeat the type portion of a highway abbreviation after the slash, or "US 10/US 501" than assume readers will know that you're referring to two separate, but concurrent, highways.
    • Link and abbreviate Interstate 40 on first mention in the lead as well. Then you can abbreviate all Interstates on subsequent mentions (linking individual highways on first mention as appropriate), just like with the US Highways.
    • "decomissioned to a secondary road"? I think you mean "recommissioned as a secondary road" (note the spelling error in the original and the slightly different meaning of the suggested phrasing)
  • RD
    • If you properly link and abbreviate the US Highway first mentioned in the lead, you won't need to use the awkward construction here of an abbreviation in parentheses in the middle of a concurrency name. If Church Street carries that highway, just put it in parentheses after the highway name instead of using the slash notation to denote it as a concurrent highway.
    • Flip the order of the footnotes after the first paragraph, otherwise you have [2][1] at the moment.
    • "W Elm Street" and "E. Elm Street" honestly, I'd prefer if you'd spell out the directional prefix, but if you don't, you need to be consistent in applying the period or not to the abbreviation.
    • "...crosses Interstates 40/85 at..." → "... crosses I-40/I-85 at.."
    • "...parrallel [sic] to Haw River.." → "...parallel to the Haw River..." spelling error and missing word
    • "Honda Power Equipment Maunfactering [sic] Plant" probably a superfluous detail to mention the company name. Ditto the name of the store in the second sentence after that. It comes across as a bit unduly promotional of a brand name that isn't a pertinent detail when "along with a factory" or "store" works just as well to convey the important parts.
    • "several industrial type businesses" → "several industrial-type businesses" because that's a compound adjective ("industrial" can't modify "type businesses" and make sense, so you must hyphenate it)
    • "disapate" → "dissipate", "breifly" → "briefly".
    • At this point, I'm going to stop reading the RD. You need to break the section into some subsections, and you need to spell check the whole thing. Until that's done, you have a wall of text full of typos that makes it hard to read.
  • History
    • "The routing for the orginal NC 54 appears on maps begining in 1916 planning the state highway system of North Carolina." → "The routing for the original NC 54 was included on the 1916 map of the planned state highway system in North Carolina." Follow this with the footnote to the 1916 map.
    • "However the NC 54 banner is not offically found on any North Carolina State Highway maps until 1924. The route was routed from NC 75 in Pittsboro southeast to NC 50 in Moncure, connecting the town to US 1." → "The highway was not marked as such on official maps until 1924; it was routed from NC 75 in Pittsboro southeast to NC 50 in Moncure, connecting the town to US 1." Follow this merged sentence with the appropriate footnote as well.
    • "The route was deleted in 1928 and today stands as Moncure Pittsboro Road." → "By 1929, the first NC 54" was redesignated as a secondary road." The map being cited was published in 1929, so you can't say it was renumbered in 1928 without a 1928 map showing it unchanged. This also means you need to fix the reference to the year in the lead to match this change.
    • ""NC 54 was first signed in 1929 as a new highway begining at US 70/NC 10 in Graham and running along its current routing to US 70/NC 10 south of Durham." No, it wasn't "first signed" because you've already established that there was a different NC 54. Try "NC 54 was then signed at the same time as a new highway begining at US 70/NC 10 in Graham and running along its current routing to US 70/NC 10 south of Durham."
    • The 1930 change needs a before-and-after citation, or else you need to change it to "By the next year, ..."
    • "followed along" → "followed"; drop the redundant word.
    • "In 1940" same issue, without a 1941 map being cited, you can't say it actually happened in 1940. In fact, if it appeared in the 1940 map, it probably actually happened in 1939 or earlier!
    • The next sentence finally gives us a pair of consecutive maps for the citations, but you say the change happened in 1953. No, it happened after the 1952 map went to press, normally early in the year, and before the 1953 map was printed. That means the change should have happened in 1952. The same issue with your purported 1956 change.
    • "The previous routing was signed as NC 54A and later became NC 54 Business before being decommisioned in 1987." is uncited in the history section. I'd reword this as "The previous routing was signed as NC 54A,* and it later became NC 54 Business in XXXX* before being decommisioned in 1987.*" (the asterisks correspond to the appropriate footnotes, and in the first case, you could just shift the footnotes from the previous sentence into the middle of this one since they would/should support that sentence and the first half of this one.
    • The 1963 change needs to be fixed to 1962 per the years of the maps cited.
    • The 2001 change can't be specified to that year because you aren't citing a 2001 map. You'll need to say "between 2000 and 2002"
  • Future
  • Bannered routes ("Related routes" would be better and avoid the neologism, by the way)
    • "was commisoned" → "was commissioned" another spelling error. The rest of the section needs the years fixed per the comments above in the history review. Then you need to fix and cite the years in the infobox.
    • Are these the same special route that was renumbered from NC 54A to Bus. NC 54? If so, merge the sections. You can keep the separate infoboxes, but make one prose narrative.
    • The state abbreviation isn't needed on the locations in the infobox. If someone doesn't know by now reading the whole article that this is in NC, well, they're stupid.

As I said in bottom of the checklist, I'll give you 7 days, Ncchild, to work on this. I have serious doubts about whether this can pass in that timeframe though. Realistically, the article needs a good copy edit, and before you could enlist someone to help (if you do), the history section needs to be fixed to clean up the errors based on the sources. The writing needs a lot of work to meet the standard expected of a good highway article. Imzadi 1979 → 10:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be very careful in replying inline to the comments above. You broke the format of the bulleted list by inserted indented lines instead of copying the two asterisks and either adding the colon or a third. Also, Ncchild, if you're going to reply like that, you need to sign every one of your inserted comments, or else it looks like I made all of those comments. Please fix this immediately. Imzadi 1979 → 22:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im So Sorry, I used it for a checklist. I can delete them if you want--Ncchild (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take Another Look at the Rd, I cleaned a lot of the extranous facts up so its more focused.--Ncchild (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Imzadi1979, I have cleaned up the talk page along with doing significant changes to the route description--Ncchild (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ncchild:, can you restore your comments on what you've fixed? Just make sure you add your signature after each one if you're going to list them inline as you did before, and make sure that you're properly indenting them. Imzadi 1979 → 23:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979:, I restored them for you.--Ncchild (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979:, when you get the chance could you look at my fixes. Thanks!--Ncchild (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, your footnotes at the end of each RD paragraph are in the wrong order, each one appearing as <small[2][1], probably because you're using the Google citation for the length in the infobox (making it FN1) and listing it after the map citation in the RD. Honestly, you should find a better source for the length and RJL mileposts, but for now, it can suffice.

Other comments on the updated article include:

  • We need to decide if NC is a "route" state or a "highway" state. By this, I mean the nominated article is entitled "North Carolina Highway 54", but when writing out the full name, you used "U.S. Route 70". In my experience, these would match up, using the same term in both forms.
  • Do we really need the name of the outlet mall? Calling it out feels just a promotional as the factory name I asked you to omit before.

"E. Main Street" yet you spelled out "West Elm Street". Pick a technique and stick with it. "passing by a Quarry" drop the capital letter as it isn't a proper name/noun.

  • "...US 15/US 501/NC 86 at South Columbia Street... US 15/US 501..." the US Highways are wikilinked both times. The second occurrence should be unlinked. Also, can you rephrase those two sentences to avoid naming the same street name twice in rapid succession?
  • My comments about fixing your years in the history have gone partially unheeded. You just cannot say that something happened in 1930 when citing the 1929 and 1930 maps. You could say "By the next year...", but you cannot make the claim you're making in the way you're making it with the sources you're using.
  • "The road which is scheduled to be completed between 2018 and 2021 would serve" → "The road, which is scheduled to be completed between 2018 and 2021, would serve..." add the missing commas, please.

These items need to be fixed at a minimum before promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 05:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979:To try and not mess up the layout (which I probably will with this comment), I'm just going to put my comments here. Everything was completed. I changed US Route 70 to US Highway 70 because it makes more sense and also I here it more often (at least in NC). The outlet mall was really out of place so that was taken out entirely. I missed the E. Elm Street when I went through to fix those kind of problems but it should be good now. I reworked the two sentences because they were redundant anyway. There was obviously a miss understanding about the maps but they should be fine now. The commas were added.--Ncchild (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979:
That didn't work. You have to sign at the same time as the ping. That said, things look good. Imzadi 1979 → 02:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Carolina_Highway_54/GA1&oldid=1087812535"