Talk:Delaware Route 299/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jameboy (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria: The article has reliable sources, is apparently neutral, has no cleanup banners, has had no recent edit wars, and does not concern a rapidly unfolding current event. No problems here, moving on to full review. --Jameboy (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Main review:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The prose is clear and there are no spelling issues. I made a couple of minor fixes for clarity. The only part that isn't too clear is in the History section: "DE 71 was rerouted off of US 301/DE 299 by 1987." I'm not too sure if "off of" is American English or American slang, but either way I think it should be rephrased - does it mean simply "off" or "away from" or something else?

   B. MoS compliance:

   Lead and layout are fine. The intersections table is a useful list that helps support the prose. Can't find any words to avoid (use of the word "just" seems valid here to indicate a small distance). Fiction not applicable.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   References section present and correct.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well-referenced, with inline citations for all route specifics.

   C. No original research:

   No original research detected.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Route, history and intersections are all covered.

   B. Focused:

   There isn't any unnecessary detail - the article is quite short, but then so is the road, so I would be surprised if there was much more to say about it.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral and descriptive throughout. Can't see any evidence of bias.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Checked article's edit history - article is stable and no evidence of edit wars.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   All content is free use from Commons. There is one photo as well as numerous road sign icons - all contain licensing info and copyright status tags.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   One photo for a fairly short article is about right. It shows the route in question and has an appropriate descriptive caption.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All links check out. Putting the review on hold for the one issue mentioned above to be fixed. --Jameboy (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Something I just spotted... the existing GA road articles I have looked at generally have a map image in the infobox - could one be added here? --Jameboy (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I fixed the grammatical issue mentioned above. By the way, maps are suggested for GA road articles but not required. I suppose I can request one. Dough4872 22:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If I can leave a comment here, the Maps Task Force of the US Roads WikiProject works hard to create maps for articles as they are reassessed higher on the assessment scale. Sadly, there are only a handful of active editors with the technical skills to create maps from the available GIS resources. They try to fulfill as many requests as they can, but time is limited. They are also active writers and reviewers in the project. Hopefully they can fulfill the request soon, but I think there is a question of finding a good shape file that includes this highway to create the map. Imzadi 1979 → 21:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No problems, I am passing the article after the grammatical issue was fixed. Obviously the addition of a map in the future would be an improvement, but it doesn't seem vital for GA. Good work, well done and don't forget to review another Good Article Nomination from the list. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)