Talk:Texas Recreational Road 4/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 01:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Will get back to this. Good.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Will get back to this. Good.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Good.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   References included where needed.

   C. No original research:

   No original research found.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   All major aspects about the topic have been covered.

   B. Focused:

   Maybe...see comment section.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias found.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   See comment section. Stable enough.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   Image used is tagged correctly.

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

   Image provided is appropriate, no caption needed for this type of picture (infobox).

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

This article has just been created. Because of that, I don't know if content within the article will change making it unstable. Also, I don't know if an article at this length can pass GA. I will get back to the review when I get an answer and I know it sounds like a stupid/silly question.--Dom497 (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well. Actually, the issue is not the article length at a standpoint, but I feel this article to be underdeveloped. I've read the references and the route description could be expanded greatly with only the sources on the article. I'll be checking on the 'net to see if I find more on history. Major junctions is ok. —Hahc21 01:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, i think it fails 3(b), since it doesn't focuses enough on the topic to properly give a concise information to the reader, which is what a good article might do. —Hahc21 01:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Folks, before you rush into judgement, take the subject into context. This is a 3-mile-long highway in rural central Texas. What more do you want? It's not like it's lined with businesses or landmarks. The article is focused on the description of the route that the road takes to connect the main highway with the park.

The history of the designation is comprehensive; the only additional details you could possibly add would be when or if the road was repaved. We intentionally omit routine maintenance like that from highway articles. If there were additional changes, TxDOT would have noted them in its highway designation file for the highway; some highways are just never changed.

As for the relative newness of the article, the primary editor could have been working on writing it offline and you don't see the amount of work because that method won't reflect a lot of edits. Imzadi 1979 → 02:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"...the primary editor could have been working...", that doesn't mean they did. Also, the article will be on hold for 7 days so that all the info about the topic is confirmed to be included in the article and that the article is stable whether or not the nominator worked on it offline.--Dom497 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As with all of the other Recreational Road articles that I have recently made, I have spent the past week researching the highways and preparing the articles. If necessary for length, I could expand the route description be very specific. EX: "The highway proceeds southeast, passing a small group of houses and intersecting county road 415." - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 18:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for answering Awardgive. That's exactly what i meant. Expand the route description and be very specific (and do it for all Rec. roads). That's the only issue i have spotted. —Hahc21 19:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed and approved Texas Recreational Road 5. All about the road is actually on the page: i did a check on Google. Awardgiven addressed the issues on route desc on the other articles, but on this one we're still waiting. Cheers! —Hahc21 00:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Route description expansion complete. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 02:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have passed the article.--Dom497 (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)