Talk:U.S. Route 70 in North Carolina/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a review of this article

I'm starting a review of this article. There's one question that I always like to ask early. Is there an editor or editors would be involved in this process on behalf of the article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I try for "middle of the road" regarding expectations for GA. I tend to be a bit tougher than others with respect to empathy for the reader, and a bit easier than some others in some other areas. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

After 2 weeks of an unanswered open question, it appears that there is nobody here to participate on behalf of the article. This leaves me with only the choice of pass / fail rather that improving the article during the GA review process. I noted some issues with "well written" This really isn't a big enough of an issue to fail this criteria and so I must say that it passes this criteria.North8000 (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Map has suitable license North8000 (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US 29 image has suitable license North8000 (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daisies has a suitable license North8000 (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial view is public domain North8000 (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs a map beyond just a 2" long red line with no place names. After 2 weeks of an unanswered open question, it appears that there is nobody here to participate on behalf of the article. This leaves me with only the choice of pass / fail rather than improving the article during the GA review process. This really isn't a big enough of an issue to fail this criteria and so I must say that it passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Readability, summarization

This could relate to the three still-open areas. The bulk of this article consists of hundreds of route details, all made (only) in terms of names of roads, cities, towns. While that is excellent and useful work (particularly as a reference for those details) currently a typical reader would have a hard time absorbing any "general picture" or overview from the article. What do you think of these suggestions to help in that respect?:

Expand the beginning summary of the route section a bit. Include a bit of geographic context that is not just in terms of other place names. E.G "going from west to east", "in the central part of the route" , Follows the inner coast" with a bit more geography description (western mountains, central plains, coastal swamps etc)
Is it possible / feasible to put a map or maps in there? Maps are key to reading and absorbing detailed geographic information. The only map in the article is basically a thumbnail (whether displayed small or large) with no place names on it.

North8000 (talk) 8 March 2017

Is there anyone who could be involved on behalf of the article.?North8000 (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding maps might be an issue, as we would be limited to NCDOT maps (which would be frowned upon as it was commented earlier of the article's reliance on them as references) and possibly USGS maps. Maybe have them broken up by area as oppose to one state-wide map, since the thumbnail covers that; though could overwhelm the article with a lot of little maps, unless we use maps for specific locations, like its routing through Asheville and such. As for adding geography in the summary, I guess some should have been mentioned. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that using a map to enhance the article is a different question than using it as a reference. I think that even a single slightly expanded version (e.g with some city names on it) would be a nice addition. Both then and now it was / is just a suggestion, I already passed it as a Good Article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. I think that there are the noted areas which need a bit of work but there was no editor involved here during the review process, and those areas were not sufficient to prevent passage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Reviewer[reply]