Talk:Arizona State Route 89A/GA1

GA Review

This isn't a review, per se, but I have a couple comments. First, the lead needs to be expanded to around two or three times its current length. Also, the image layout is odd. Maybe remove a couple of them and stick 'em in a Commons cat? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Good article. It just needs a few fixes to pass the GA criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Some of the prose in the Route description reads a little rough to my eyes/ears. While there is a good job at not always referring to the roadway as SR 89A, it's only ever called "the highway" instead. I'd mix it up a bit more and use "the roadway", "it", "the route" or similar to break up the monotony that's developed. The same can be said for multiple references to the same town. It's acceptable to say "through the south part of town" instead of "through the south part of Sedona" just to break up the constant usage of the city's name. So many sentences in the History section start with "By ####," so that section reads a little monotonously. The history section has a left-aligned image directly under a second level heading. This is against the rule in MOS:IMAGES and should be fixed. Also, while no longer required by MOS:NUM, non-breaking spaces in the route numbers might still be a good idea.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Good sources used well in the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   No editwarring in evidence here, only the normal routine article expansion/organization in the edit history.

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):

   As mentioned above, the photo in the history section needs to be moved or reformated to comply with the MOS. User:Juliancolton did recommend above that the photos be pared down and moved to a commons gallery. I can't say I disagree, but that's a judgement best left to the article's editors.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck with the fixes. Let me know when done so I can re-evaluate. I look forward to passing it. Until then, I'm placing the article on hold for seven days.

Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'd expand the lead a bit to make better mention of Sedona and Oak Creek Canyon, maybe at least a sentence a piece? Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been well over the 7 days with no activity so I'm failling this article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)