User:Miranda/Oklahoma State Highway 9

What is a good article?

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): (not properly cited) b (citations to reliable sources): (not properly cited) c (OR):

3. It is broad in coverage

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): N/A c (non-free images have fair use rationales): N/A

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Post Analysis Review

Issue addressed

Issue not addressed

Neutral

General Notes on Oklahoma State Highway 9

• Avoid using the word "it"

Lead

Issue addressed miranda 11:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have copyedited this section to fit according to WP:LEAD.

West of I-35

Issue addressed miranda 12:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I had to copyedit this section.

 Done with this whole section, I think. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Issue addressed miranda 12:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• You might want to establish what I-35 is for users who are not familiar with the area.
• It continues east for 23 miles (37 km)[3] without intersecting another highway until meeting U.S. 283/OK-34 two miles north of Mangum. It overlaps the other two routes for four miles, going north, before splitting off and heading east again through Granite and Lone Wolf. - Take out "it" and replace with a proper noun (route, interstate, highway, etc.)

Second Paragraph

Issue addressed miranda 12:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Around Fort Cobb, Oklahoma, it begins 9 miles (14 km) of travel to the south. There, it links up with the concurrent U.S. Highways 62 and 281.

Take out it, and replace with proper nouns.

Third Paragraph

Issue addressed miranda 12:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Four miles later, OK-9 splits away from the two U.S. routes, all alone until Goldsby.

What's the other route (other than U.S. 62)?

• The section of road, recently upgraded to a four-lane divided highway, provides a link from the H.E. Bailey Turnpike Spur to Interstate 35.

Hyperlink H.E. Bailey Turnpike.

East of I-35

Issue addressed miranda 12:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I had to copyedit this section
• However, after a full interchange with U.S. 77 the road becomes a two lane highway again.

Comma after U.S. 77.

• It intersects the Indian Nation Turnpike near Hanna, and U.S. 69 near Eufaula. It provides access to the south side of Lake Eufaula before reaching Stigler.

Replace "it" with proper noun

 Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

History

Issue addressed miranda 12:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need the quote, because the quote tells you what you mentioned in E/W 35.

I believed the quote added depth because it shows how the Department of Highways defined the route in 1925. The route was different then than it is now (half of it has been shifted south of the 1925 route by about 20 miles or so). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, I think you should take it out. Please see When to use quotations. miranda 03:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• What does OK-9 was truncated to Chickasha mean?
  • Everything past Chickasha was dropped from OK-9 (I think most of it was taken over by U.S. 62, which was new at the time), so OK-9's east endpoint became Chickasha for a time. See wikt:truncate. (Unless you're doubting Oklahoma has a city named Chickasha :P ...it does exist, really!) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably the construction of Highway 9 stopped at Chickasha would work better here. miranda 06:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, OK-9 had already been built in its entirety (up to that point). Everything after Chickasha, though, ceased to be OK-9: it became part of other highways like U.S. 62 (or 266? I can't remember), or was transferred to the county.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Prose issues:

On August 27, 1935, the route was extended eastward again,[1] bringing it over the original OK-37 and its eastern terminus to OK-48 near Seminole.[6] On August 25, 1937, the route was brought further east to end at U.S. 69 in Eufaula.[1] Part of the newly commissioned section was rescinded on October 19, 1937,[1] when a small section just east of OK-48 and all of the route in Hughes County was dropped.[7]

Syntax is confusing.

It --> PN

• In 1941, OK-9 was extended eastward twice. The first extension occurred on February 26, 1941,[1] and extended OK-9 to OK-2 at Whitefield.[8]. The final extension brought OK-9 to the Arkansas state line on November 12, 1941.[1]. No further extensions or truncations have occurred since then.

Double period

"since then." - just go with "since"

The only major realignment in OK-9's history since 1941 was the Norman expressway bypass, which was designated as OK-9 on 1971-11-08.

This needs to be added to this section rather than standing off alone.

• I had to copyedit this section
• All eastbound traffic was routed along the section of OK-9 between OK-2 in Whitefield and U.S. 59.

hyperlink Whitefield.

Spurs

Issue not addressed miranda 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Along its length SH-9 creates a number of spur highways:

"Oklahoma State Highway 9 creates spur highways. For example:"

• I had to copyedit this section.

Junction list

Issue addressed miranda 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good.

Images

Issue addressed miranda 12:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Two aren't captioned (see "History" and "Spurs")
• Image captions aren't supposed to end with periods, unless they are full sentences.
• Noticed on the talk page that the image needs a map.

 Done except for the map; that tag refers to a map meeting the WP:USRD/MTF guidelines. I'm currently 315 miles (507 km) from my GIS files, so I'm afraid I can't do anything about this at the moment. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Issue addressed miranda 12:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• References aren't according to WP:CITE. Citations are supposed to have access dates if they are accessed online.

 Done, all references have access dates and are using standard reference templates. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary Decision

I am putting the article on hold until Jan. 10th for the issues to be addressed. miranda 02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Article was assessed early due to request of user. miranda 12:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Post Analysis Decision

(10/1/0) Ten of the eleven issues were addressed in the GA review. Thus, this article is promoted to GA status. Congrats! miranda 12:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)