Talk:Virginia State Route 27/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Imzadi 1979 → 20:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See below for detailed comments.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See below for detailed comments.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See below for detailed comments.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I would suggest though that you contact WP:USRD/MTF for a map and remove the 1945 map, or reduce its prominence.

   Pentagon Road Network Map shows original road and Mixing Bowl in its context, which was subsequently distorted by the development of I-395. Racepacket (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

   That's fine, but that image appears as a part of the Route description, which is the modern context for the road. I suggest you get a current map, which is possible by making a request at the Maps Task Force. The map you've used doesn't even label what is now Route 27 to give a reader context. That map could also be cropped down to focus on what is Route 27 to the exclusion of the other roadways, and it could be displayed at a smaller size, say the defualt thumbnail size. You've set it to be 10px wider than the infobox, and that makes it almost as tall as the infobox, exaggerating its prominence. Imzadi 1979 → 21:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There are too many unaddressed items from the second GA review. This article was minimally edited and rushed right back to GAN without completing the needed work. I urge the nominator to complete the items from the reviews, and get a third-party to copy edit the article before any subsequent nominations. Wikipedia does not have a deadline, and this article can wait to be nominated at such time as it actually warrants the promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 21:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Criterion 1 comments

1. Lead is too short and does not adequately summarize the content of the article. This is a holdover from the previous review that was not completed before renomination.

   It was expanded between nominations. Racepacket (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

   It's still too short. Imzadi 1979 → 21:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

2. The level of writing quality has not been sufficiently improved in the article since the last review. Please have a third party give the article a copy edit. I suggest the fine folks at WP:GoCE may be of use in this regard.
3. The RD section is poorly organized. The first paragraph describes the whole route. The second then jumps back to a point in the middle. The third paragraph seems to pick up someplace in the middle of the route as well. A reader should not need a map open as a reference to follow the RD section. Please, re-organize this section so that it starts at one terminus and proceeds to the opposing terminus without backtracking. The fourth paragraph should be integrated into the rest of the section. The various highlights and landmarks should be mentioned in the locations where they actually fall along the route.

   Implemented suggestion from GA2. Racepacket (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

   That's fine, but it's still an issue. The organization is poor in the version I reviewed. Imzadi 1979 → 21:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

4. "Route 27 is proximate to the site of the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon, and the route was closed for weeks following the attack as a security measure." The word proximate can be replaced by next or near without a loss of meaning, and it would improve how the sentence sounds. Also unaddressed from the previous review.
5. The last paragraph of the History is short. Can it either be expanded or combined with another paragraph? The last sentence is poorly written, and this is an unaddressed comment from the last review.

Criterion 2 comments

1. Footnote 1 is missing an accessdate. Additionally, I believe that there is a newer version of that report that is available. I suggest verifying that the length and distances have not been updated, and switching to the newer source.
2. Footnote #3 is a self-published source. It does not merit the exceptions under that policy. Please replace the source with one that is considered reliable or strike the information from the article. This is also a holdover from the previous review that was not completed before renomination.
3. Please add a source for "although local motorists more recently use that term to refer to the Springfield Interchange on the Capital Beltway in Springfield" or remove it. That sounds like OR without a source.
4. Footnote 15 is to an aerial photo that lacks any labeling of the roads. Please find a better source for this information. If you need aerial photography, I suggest using Google Maps or its kin. They have satellite photos, and they label the names and locations of roadways in the photos.
5. Footnotes 9 and 16 don't have |format=PDF set in the citation templates. While not strictly a part of the GA criteria, this is something that should still be fixed.
6. I'm usually suspicious of any sentence that has three consecutive footnotes at the end of it. - Would you feel better if we listed all three sources in a single footnote?
7. How does footnote 9 support all of the information in the sentences preceding it.
8. No source given for the fact that the road was closed for weeks. Given the nature of the closure, I'm sure that some local newspaper covered the closure in an article. Likewise for the "No stopping" sign installation.
9. Footnote 15 does not show any fences. Remove that detail or resource.

Criterion 3 comments

1. Since you've cited a traffic volume report as a source, it might be nice to include a highlight of the traffic volumes on Route 27 in the article.
2. I would expand on the first sentence of the last paragraph of the RD. I would add a little more information on these closures. This place the traffic counts information would be a good last paragraph for the RD section.