Talk:Ohio State Route 369/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

No disamb. or invalid external links. One must seriously question why you are nominating two short spur road for GA consideration, when the main OH 4 road, that this route connects, does not even have a route description. Wouldn't it make more sense to work on the major roads first, and leave the short (less than 2 miles) roads until the after the major roads are completed?

Honestly, does it matter what type of route articles are being submitted for GAN? It does not. This is a GA review is for exactly one article. This is not a review for a series of articles. DanTheMan474 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OH 4 was viewed 347 times in Feb. 2011, while OH 369 was viewed 27 times. So, while I can't dictate which articles you nominate, I am asking you to consider Wikipedia's users when setting your personal priorities. Racepacket (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...under what right do you have to tell a user what he can or can't work on? Wikipedia allows anyone to do what articles they feel like. If Dan more than wants to work on OH 369, he has the right to. No individual editor can tell one what they can't work on. The community does, but that is only under sanctions. Back off on this please.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 19:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Mitch's remark is appropriate. The fact is that aside from the AADT boiler plate paragraph and infobox that he uses in all his articles, there is very little prose content in either OH 369 and OH 372. I'm being a nice guy, but a tougher reviewer would have quick failed both for being "stubs" ineligible for a GA review. He also GA nominated OH 253 and OH 319 which are both 0.56 miles long and OH 716 which is 6.7 miles long. So after five GA reviews, we have covered less than 9 miles of highway. Meanwhile the Ohio highway articles that people actually read are flagged with missing sections. DanTheMan474 is a good editor and he should decide where his talents can be best deployed. Racepacket (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I helped him with OH 716, because that was the first thing he ever nominated. I don't take kindly to your "appropriate remark" comment. He has the right to choose the articles, and unless you can cite policy to Dan violating stuff, stop bulling this and move on.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 20:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion is comprehensiveness, not length. If Dan wishes to build his comfort level with shorter articles that meet the criteria, then who are we to judge. There are featured articles that are on shorter highways. Your job as a reviewer to to apply the criteria to the nominated article and measure that article by that yardstick. No more, no less. Imzadi 1979 → 20:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these comments relate to this review and both evidences a failure to read my remarks. Racepacket (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Reword:"where the intersecting freeway meets Lower Valley Pike." I assume that OH 4 was routed on Lower Valley Pike before it became a freeway. Also, you can incorporate the idea that OH 369 share a bridge with Lower Valley Pike under OH 4, and that Lower Valley Pike continues east undesignated after the interchange with OH.
This has been re-worded. DanTheMan474 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"highway are now lined with homes"- delete "now" - it is temporal.
Check. DanTheMan474 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

consider expanding Parclo to Partial cloverleaf interchange. Consider wikilink it.
Sounds good. Check. DanTheMan474 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
The Traffic report (Ref # 5) is a bit confusing. I read it as saying only 1,580 non-commerical vehicles and 120 commercial vehicles use this road to access US 40. The other data includes traffic that leaves the interchange to access Lower Valley Pike.
My main intention is to identify the section of OH 369 that sees the most traffic volume. The survey shows that the portion of OH 369 within the confines of the OH 4 interchange sees the greatest volume, which is what the text reflects. DanTheMan474 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "the busiest stretch of SR 369 is the portion in the vicinity of the SR 4 interchange, where typically 2,900 passenger vehicles and 220 commercial vehicles use the highway on a daily basis.[5]"->"the busiest stretch of SR 369 is the portion shared with Lower Valley Pike in the vicinity of the SR 4 interchange, where typically 2,900 passenger vehicles and 220 commercial vehicles use the highway on a daily basis. Traffic at the north end was 1,600 passenger vehicles and 120 commercial vehicles.[5]"
That's fair. I have clarified this. DanTheMan474 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Ref #5 point to page 5 instead of page 6?
Corrected. DanTheMan474 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Any construction planned?
No. DanTheMan474 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit wars.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Did you check flickr or other sources?
There are no photos available at this time. DanTheMan474 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found File:Bethel Township, Clark County, Ohio.jpg which shows the route in about the middle of the photo. You might want to check with Nyttend to see if he has any other aerial shots from that flight.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article represents significant work by its author. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One last item on AADT and we are done. Racepacket (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on another Good Article. Racepacket (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]