Talk:Missouri Route 164

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Missouri Route 164/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 03:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Taking a look at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 03:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   History

   • "Around 1933, Route Y was designated from Cardwell to Caruth,..." might go without saying, but I assume the route that became this road started out at this time as a dirt road? That should be specified otherwise it's confusing.
     • Mentioned starting as a gravel road.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 05:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • "and it was removed and replaced by Route N in 1937." -- When you say "replaced," does this mean it was paved over the same area or is there any differentiation between routes J and N?
     • Reworded to say only the letter was changed.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 05:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • "The entirety of Route Y was paved in 1949,[9][10] and Route N was extended to Route Y by 1953." -- Any projected costs of either of these projects? It should be a matter of public record.
     • I found the cost for the first one, still looking for the other.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 04:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
     • Found the second one.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 04:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • "An interchange was built at I-55 two years later." -- I would expect a cost of this one would be easy to find, too.
     • No cost for just the interchange, but there is one for that section of I-55.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 05:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • Any projected traffic count on this road?
     • MoDOT does not offer any projections, only traffic count maps every three years.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 04:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Seeing no gaps in coverage. Cites are favored toward maps but good.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass Though I do think the traffic counts and costs of the infrastructure are an important part of the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass no problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

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

   Pass though is it possible to include a map?

7. Other:

   Dup links, dab links, external links and copyvio tool all check out. —Ed!^(talk) 03:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

   • Source spotcheck Ref 6, Ref 14 and Ref 24 all line up with what's cited in the article.

On Hold Pending a few minor fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 03:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ed!: Thanks for the review.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 05:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Good work on this one! Passing for GA. —Ed!^(talk) 20:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)