Talk:U.S. Route 290/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 23:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will review later this week. Sounder Bruce 23:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Many paragraphs are missing citations. Very few secondary sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Missing a lot of information beyond legislative changes, for example construction impacts for the freeway sections.
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):
The left-adjusted shields should be combined and properly captioned.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Infobox and lead

The use of "at" in the junctions list is rather unnatural, and "southeast of Segovia" is not in line with USRD standards.
The browse order should have SH 290 after US 290, not before.
"current" is unnecessary
Three consecutive sentences that begin with "it"; add more variety
The history paragraph needs to have years or decades to not confuse readers
The US 90 factoid does not belong in the lead

Route description

Every paragraph needs an appropriate map source, and every claim that cannot be verified by the map should have a separate reliable source. A few examples of claims that need other citations (preferably from secondary sources):
- "important artery for Fredericksburg's agricultural district" – something that should be worded more neutrally
- "several wineries"
- "additional hilly terrain"
- Manor Expressway and toll information
- Hurricane evacuation information
Exit numbers for other highways are not necessary
"amidst additional farmland" is unnatural
- Most uses of "additional" in the section are unnecessary
Explaining how the Johnson NHP is split would be helpful before using terms like ranch/city area/unit
Designated as Main Street → US 290 is signed as Main Street or US 290 travels on Main Street
Do we really need to use sigmoid curve? There are alternatives for laymen that sound more natural.

History

"The department's" – Which department?
Exact dates are overkill in the first section, and frankly make it hard to read
"vest the department" – vested or granted (in more natural language)
Citation overkill in the last paragraph of the "Other" section

Future

Any updates since 2011? It belongs in another section if it was a one-time proposal
Surely more information can be added for the remaining proposals

Final comments

I'm afraid I will have to fail this GAN. It would need a lot of work to reach basic GA standards and I suggest you look for someone within USRD to advise you about writing road content in a more natural way. Sounder Bruce 06:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]