Talk:U.S. Route 89 in Utah/GA1
GA Review
[edit]I plan to review this article. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 00:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Preliminary Review by Robert Skyhawk
[edit]I have reviewed this article, and have found just a few things which I think should be fixed, detailed here:
Note: "Done" and "Not done" status indicates whether an issue has been fixed. Once a particular issue has been addressed, editors are free to change this status and use this list as a checklist.
- Infobox:
- The map could use a caption; it is a tad unclear at first which road is US-89.
Done
- I doubled the width of the red line; is it clearer now (and does it still need the caption)? --NE2 05:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- The map could use a caption; it is a tad unclear at first which road is US-89.
- Route description section:
- Breaking this section into sub-sections would be a good organizational touch; how this would be done is up to the editor(s).
- Done
- "US-89 enters Utah inside the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area..." Perhaps add "from the south" or something similar; technically the highway enters and exits the state from the north and south.
- Done - Hope I did some justice to this article. CL — 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done
- Breaking this section into sub-sections would be a good organizational touch; how this would be done is up to the editor(s).
With these issues withstanding, I would rate this article in the following manner:
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This is not the final review; I am putting the nomination on hold so that the above issues may be fixed.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- I'll hold off here until above issues are fixed.
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- The level of detail on the Route summary is amazing, yet it doesn't list details to an overly exhaustive extent. Well done.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- The images on this article are also impressive. The inclusion of some of the Scenic Byways is a nice touch.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- As stated above, I'm putting the nomination on hold.
- Pass or Fail:
For the most part, this looks like a very good article deserving of GA status. As a Utah resident, I believe this article accurately and thoroughly describes one of this state's major highways. When the above issues are cleared, please contact me on my talk page and I will happily resume the process. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- It needs more details of the history, for instance the bypassing by I-70 in the Sevier Valley. I stopped work on it without finishing it, but will hopefully get back to it in the future. --NE2 01:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the improvements. Despite this lack in the History section, I believe this article is deserving of GA status. I will proceed to make the necessary changes. Congratulations to all involved editors. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 19:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)