Talk:Ohio State Route 500/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 19:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article either today or tomorrow. –TC N7 JM 19:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): 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:
You know, I never really understood how you could be biased about a highway.
Usually, the issues would be regarding whether a highway should be constructed or not - see California State Route 241 for an example. --Rs chen 7754 21:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
You have, like, the last thirty edits to this page, lol.
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):
The lack of images really makes this inapplicable.
Overall: I'm waiting for somebody else to check the references that are in MrSID format.
Pass/Fail:

Lead

"The 13.32 miles (21.44 km) of SR 500 that lie within the state serve as a minor highway." This seems to imply that there exist portions of SR 500 that lie outside of the state.
"SR 500 replaced SR 194 designation of the highway which dated back to 1923, SR 194 ran between Payne and Paulding."

Route description

"After a distance..." This seems pretty vague. How long of a distance?
"while the northside of the highway..." → "while the north side of the highway..."
"The road arrives at a traffic signal where they meet SR 613 (Townline Street)." Road and they contradict each other in number.

Route description (Part 2)

With your new revision to my last comment, the sentence now reads "where it meet..."
"In 2009, ODOT figured that lowest traffic levels were the 1,063 vehicles used the highway daily on the section that is concurrent with SR 49."

I would reword this sentence, something like, "In 2009, ODOT figured that lowest traffic levels was present on the section that is concurrent with SR 49, where only 1,063 vehicles used the highway daily."
Is there any newer data than from 2009?

I, myself, have corrected the subject-verb agreement in the last sentence of this section.

History

"signed as SR 194 from northeast of Payne to Paulding..."
"SR 194 was decommissioned..."
"The highway was gravel surface..." → "The highway had a gravel surface..."
"By 1955, SR 113, now SR 613, was rerouted..."
I've noticed that the references in the last sentence are not in numeric order. Consider switching the citations around.

Major intersections

References

I can't get my MrSID plugin to work...I've asked somebody else to try and check the references. Until then, the above issues can be fixed. –TC N7 JM 04:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the real problem with the references...

Linking directly to the map doesn't seem to work on Google Chrome. Clicking the link took me to the ODOT Main Page, and I had to scrounge for the map links. When I clicked the map link on the ODOT website, it opened IE instead of a new Chrome tab, which tells me MrSID isn't compatible with Google Chrome. I'd suggest just linking to the page with the list of maps. The references, however, are perfectly fine. –TC N7 JM 21:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Linking directly works on Chrome (running on Xubuntu) it just downloads and yes the MrSID plugin is only for IE. The program itself is only for Windows but works better on linux using WINE, than any version of Windows I have ran it on. I will change the links to the maps, I could see the possible problem. Detcin (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed link to the Maps page of ODOT's website.Detcin (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]