Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metropolitan Phoenix freeways/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:23, 3 February 2009 [1].

Metropolitan Phoenix freeways

Nominator(s): Rko202 (talk)

I am nominating Metropolitan Phoenix freeways for FA status because I believe that it is just about as decent as the rest of the Featured Articles on here. And also because it'd be a thrill for me as it'd be my first Featured Article on the site. Rko202 (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should not be inline external links (though I only saw one). --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Rko202 (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Object lead needs to summarise body and not new material. At the moment, the lead is also the "generalities" type of section. The other thing is that headers are not to be linked per WP:MOS, so unblue them and use main in the sections. YellowMonkey(click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be wise to introduce new sections for each of those generalities (particularly the last two paragraphs)? Rko202 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Headers unblued. Rko202 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the GA reviewer, I felt a bit uncomfortable passing this article - I suppose maybe just because of the nature of the article, as it doesn't fit the typical USRD mold (numbered highways) and seems to have some of the qualities of a list. This article has not gone through USRD's ACR. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviews: all images check out fine. Jappalang (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate links. In general, there should be only one piped link to any other WP article. This article has duplicate links that need to be removed. Just for example, the many links to Interstate 10 in Arizona, which is the first I looked at. Hmains (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1a, 1b, 2a.
- No history of these freeways?
  - I thought that adding that in would make this article huge. I figured that if people wanted to know more about each freeway, they could click on that freeway's individual page. This page is focused on the entire system, of which I have the history at the bottom under "Funding". (Should I change that to "History"?) Rko202 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As YellowMonkey states, the lead should be a well-organized summary.
  - Generalities at the bottom moved. Rko202 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not good to see an inconsistency in the very first sentence: "boasting over 1,405 lane miles as of 2008." Source says 2005. I made the change. What are lane miles?
  - How embarassing. That honestly should be the only one. (Not that I would trust me either.) Rko202 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "has remained a very automobile-dependent city, with its first freeway opening in 1958." Very is rather un-encyclopedic. What does "with its first freeway opening in 1958" have to do with the rest of the sentence? Was this date relatively early?
  - Yes, it is; and now I have clarified this in the article. Rko202 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking is rather suspect. Easter egg links (nation's...and why are we linking this?) should be avoided. Why are we linking terms like funding and city, and linking freeway three times in the lead alone?
  - My linking is screwed over on the entire page if you're only supposed to have one link to one page in the ENTIRE article. I've always thought that the more wikification, the better. Can I get away with linking things maybe two times for the whole article because it's long? Rko202 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Heh. I ran into the same thing with one of my first FACs, too. My personal rule of thumb is to link the first reference, only link again if there's more than six sections before the next mention of the subject, and never link more than twice. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is Phoenix's widest and arguably most congested freeway" Arguably? It either is or isn't. Give statistics.
  - Fixed and cited. Rko202 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "presumably after the Native American tribe" Why presumably?
  - Because this is the most cited assumption, beating out the fact the county that the Maricopa Freeway is located in is also called Maricopa and there is a town called Maricopa nearby. Are presumptions unacceptable on here? Rko202 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "or as it was officially referred to" "it" being?
  - Stupidity. Fixed. Rko202 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "As it turns out" Encyclopedic language please.
  - Yes, sorry. Fixed. Rko202 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also wondering whether based on the way the article is currently organized, this may be more suited for WP:FLC. BuddingJournalist 23:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per BuddingJournalist's comment just above. This should be a Featured List Candidate, if anything. --Laser brain (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.