Talk:Virginia State Route 7 Business (Purcellville)

Change detail

I made the following changes for the following reasons.

1. Business routes don't get the browser in their infoboxes. It's just been USRD practice not to do it.
2. I expanded out the reference from a bare URL to a full citation. For the reasons why, see WP:Linkrot. Also, I used a citation template because it keeps the formatting consistent.
3. I removed the roadway names in the infobox. Space is constrained there, but when the full junction list table is created, that is an appropriate detail to include. Also, that detail should be found in the route description when written.
4. I dropped the "Virginia" from the boldface name in the first sentence per WP:USSH. I added the abbreviation afterwards in parentheses, boldfacing it per MOS:BOLD.
5. A link to "U.S. state" is unneeded. Direct your readers to the article on "Virginia", and if they still need clarification, that article will link them to "U.S. state". In short, the most specific link is best, and less-specific links are not.
6. {{Convert}} is your friend. Also, the footnote should go at the end of the sentence or clause being cited, not the specific statistic. (In this case, the footnote also cites the location, not just the length.)
7. {{Jct}} uses "SR #", and so should the text of the article for consistency.
8. Spell out the abbreviations for roadway name suffixes like "Street" and "Highway".
9. Excessive boldfacing looks bad. If those terms aren't used for redirects, then they really don't need to be in bold. In otherwords, unless Loudon Street or Loudon Street (Purcelville, Virginia) redirects to this article (and I don't think that such a redirect is needed), then the term doesn't need to be in bold here. Ditto the other names.
10. Other changes to the text were made just so it would flow a bit better without unnecessary repetition of words.
11. References belong in their own section with a heading. USRD seems to prefer "References" although there is no exact rule to call it that.

Now the article just needs to be expanded. The RD section is a sentence fragment that should be a paragraph at least. This paragraph can be cited to the current paper VDOT map and a set of driving directions on Google Maps. A junction list can be created using the information from the VDOT report already cited in the article. Those two sections would make this a Start-Class article. Add a history section cited to reliable sources like old VDOT maps or old newspaper articles (try http://news.google.com and their archives search function, for example) and this would be a C- or B-Class article depending on the quality of the writing and sourcing. Imzadi 1979 → 17:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to make a junction list right now, thanks. By the way, what are "citation templates"? Philroc (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Help:Citation Style 1 documents one of our in-house styles for citing sources. That style uses various templates like {{cite web}} (for webpages), {{cite book}} (for books), or {{cite map}} (for maps) that can be used to consistently format citations. There is another in-house style (Citation Style 2) that is very similar, and editors are free to manually format APA, MLA or other type citations as they wish. (Personally, I stick to CS1 because the templates make it so much easier.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Basic fix to the junction list table

Ok, as promised in my edit summary, I'm going to detail the why for my last edit to fix the junction list.

1. Each row of the table is a separate {{VAint}} transclusion. Each one has to be started with {{VAint and then ended with }} after the last parameter for that row, in this case the |notes= .
2. For locations and counties, just supply the name, not a full link. {{VAint}} will make the link for you.
3. The Round Hill location only needs to span two rows, not 3, and the county only needs to span 4, not 5, based on what was there.

Now, one final thing for full MOS:RJL compliance: the county column needs to be removed. Since all of the junctions are in the same county, that section of the Manual of Style says to omit the column and replace it with a note above the table. That can be done like this. Imzadi 1979 → 23:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, there was another junction between the two SR 7 junctions with SR 713 (Main St.). Can you fix that? Philroc (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I can add it, but it wasn't there before. Imzadi 1979 → 18:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Aw, whatever, I already added it. Philroc (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Virginia State Route 7 Business (Purcellville)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fredddie (talk · contribs) 17:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Are Virginia highways abbreviated "VA nn" or "SR nn"? The article is inconsistent.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Two of the sections of the article are entirely unsourced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I am not from Virginia, so I only know where a few cities are. I can honestly say I have no idea where this highway is located. There is no geospatial context, whether it be a map or KML file, to tell the reader where the highway lies.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I honestly believe the nominator does not have a firm grasp of the Good Article criteria. As such, I am failing this article. –Fredddie™ 17:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

(stalking) I had a brief look at this, and I can endorse Fredddie's opinion that this does not meet the GA criteria. Furthermore, I'd suggest it's a prime candidate to be deleted, as it appears not to cite any significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources and I'd focus on getting sources such as significant news or book sources in the article ASAP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)