Talk:U.S. Route 61 in Iowa/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 04:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

After a very good experience reviewing a previous article by the same nominee on a similar topic, I will review this one too. I will start the review shortly. simongraham (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Review

The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, 97.6% of authorship is one user, Fredddie. It is currently ranked a B class article, assessed on 24 November 2020 by Freddie, but saw further development on 31 March and during April 2021. It has previously been nominated as a GA on 21 December 2020 by ToThAc but this was withdrawn before it had been assessed.

• The images are tagged with appropriate licenses under Creative Commons or in the Public Domain.

• The page has been checked with Writix, which confirms content is free of plagiarism.

• The article relies heavily on newspapers. As before, please confirm that they meet WP:NMEDIA.

• There are citations in the Infobox, but I think all these are referenced in the main body. Consider removing these as the data in line with WP:INFOBOXREF.

• There is a bold mention of Burlington Way in the lead and mentions of other related roads like Primary Road No. 20 in the body of the article. If these are alternative names, please create appropriate redirect pages and list them in the first sentence as per MOS:LEADALT.

• "by the end if 1983" should read "by the end of 1983"

• "it would be possible to relocated the railroad tracks to make room for the new highway" should read "it would be possible to relocate the railroad tracks to make room for the new highway"

• "Soo Line Railroad and Chicago Central and Pacific Railroad had agreed in principal to the design of the combined railway" should read "Soo Line Railroad and Chicago Central and Pacific Railroad had agreed in principle to the design of the combined railway"

• "An elevated highway was chosen for the segment between downtown and the Mississippi River bridge for a number of factors." Although it is not obviously in contravention to MOS:VAGUE, this paragraph could do with tightening up. For example, did it actually open? Is there more information?

There is a black hole in newspaper coverage around this time. The road opened as described, but if it's in a local newspaper, I couldn't find it. –Fredddie™

• Suggest adding wikilinks for elementary school, kilns and intersection.

@Fredddie: Another piece of great work. Please ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Simongraham: I believe I have addressed your concerns. This is not a critique, but you can fix obvious errors like if/of as part of your review. –Fredddie™ 01:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fredddie: That all looks great. I am always hesitant of editing during a review. I will complete the assessment now. simongraham (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   it contains no original research;

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

   it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

4. It has a neutral point of view

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

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

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.