Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review/U.S. Route 491

U.S. Route 491

I tried to turn this article from a stub article to a good article. I would like a review to both see if this is a good article and to see where my writing style could use improvement for both this and other articles I've worked on. Davemeistermoab 04:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found:

Like Rschen and JA said below, some headings have unnecessarily capitalized words and the "Miscellanea" section needs to be worked into the remainder of the article.
The "Timeline" in the history appears to be little more than a recap of the two sections above it. If that's the case, it's best converted to prose and placed in the lead section.
The "Route description" has unreferenced claims.
The infobox is lacking references, both for the length and the establishment date.
The US 666 shield should have a sufficient caption justifying its presence.

I didn't examine the actual writing, unfortunately, as my best reviews are centered around article layout. =) Good luck on reaching GA in the future. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this feedback came very late. But the article needs references in the route description. The "timeline" in the history needs to be turned into prose. The Miscellanea section needs to be merged onto the rest of the article.—JA10 Talk • Contribs 00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOS headings are capitalized incorrectly. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for your feedback. I only have limited access to the internet right now. When things are back to normal I will attempt to make your recommended changes. IIRC the capatalization of the headings was reciently changed, I'll check previous versions and the MOS. Davemeistermoab 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have implemented all of your suggestions. Because of the request to source the Route description section I did have to remove some content where I could not find sources (Damn rule about no original research =-) ), but while searching for sources I found some content I did not know before that is equally interesting to the roadgeek community. Please review and comment on my changes. ThanksDavemeistermoab (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]