Talk:Texas Recreational Road 3

Texas Recreational Road 3 was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 21, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
February 19, 2013	Good article reassessment	Delisted
January 19, 2023	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Delisted good article

U.S. Roads: State highways / Texas Low‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	Texas
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Texas Recreational Road 3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 00:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Quality of article is good.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Article complies with MoS.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Good.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
References are included where needed.

C. No original research:
No original research found.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
All major aspects of the article have been covered.

B. Focused:
Article remains focused throughout.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
No bias found.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Article is stable.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
No image(s) included in the article at this time.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
~~See comment section below.~~ No image that can be used on Wikipedia was found.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I have dealt with the minor issues within the article. My only suggestion is to look for one picture that illustrates something about the topic. At the very least, please attempt to look for an image and if nothing can be found, simply leave a message here or on my talk page and I will gladly pass the article.--Dom497 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A user has looked for an image and has told me that no image could be found. Therefore, I will pass the article.--Dom497 (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

FAILED

Nominator Inactive Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Texas Recreational Road 3/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Onegreatjoke (talk · contribs) 19:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be reviewing your nomination to see if it is worthy of GA status. Now, this is going to be my first review so I might make mistakes but I hope to give you a full review. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am done with my review. I will put this On Hold so that you can finish this review. I know you are semi-retired and your last edit was back in 10 November 2022 but I do hope that you come and edit this article so it can be promoted. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A Texas Historian: I will have to notify you that if you do not make any comments in a week I will have to fail this nomination. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onegreatjoke, blundering in while looking at GANs with inactive nominators - 10 days ago you said this would be failed within a week if no response. Just a reminder that this might need actioning. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failing for inactivity. Feel free to nominate it again and I'll review it again. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose[edit]

"According to TxDOT traffic along the highway is higher at its western end, which averaged 1,179 vehicles in 2021 on average, while its eastern terminus averaged only 248 vehicles a day." should be "According to TxDOT, traffic along the highway is higher at its western end, which averaged 1,179 vehicles in 2021 on average, while its eastern terminus averaged only 248 vehicles a day."
"At the hearing, the state's proposal was supported by local officials including the county Commissioners' Court, Bonham Water Authority, and Bonham Chamber of Commerce." should be "At the hearing, the state's proposal was supported by local officials, including the county Commissioners' Court, Bonham Water Authority, and Bonham Chamber of Commerce."
" According to TxDOT traffic along the highway is higher at its western end, which averaged 1,179 vehicles in 2021 on average," The double use of average seems wordy. Try to find a way to word the sentence so that average is only used once.
"(equivalent to $131,174,977 in 2020 in 2020)" You repeated in 2020 twice.

MOS[edit]

MOS seems to be okay. This section is a pass.

Referenced[edit]

For the Route Description Section.

"After intersecting Circle Drive, approximately 0.9 miles (1.4 km) into its course," The google maps source provided gives me approximately 0.8
"After a T-intersection with CR 2608 to the south," It doesn't look like a T-intersection on the google map though I could be wrong.
"after traveling a total distance of 2.037 miles (3.278 km)." Though source 1 verifies this, sources 2 and 3 don't. So it'd probably be best to move citation 1 down there.
"RE 3 is maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) as part of the Recreational Road system." Should probably have a citation that states this in my opinion.

Now for the History section.

What makes "Measuring Worth" a reliable source. Also, I'm likely dumb, but I can't seem to verify the money claims on the website.
"Two highways, RE 255 and RE 2, were added to the system at the time." Citation 10 doesn't explicitly state this.
I don't have access to citation 13 so I might have to assume good faith on it. Though I'd like if you can provide the quote that verifies the claim of the sentence it's cited in.
"upgrading the surface to all-weather asphalt pavement and smoothing out three sharp curves" Being picky but the source says eliminating not smoothing out. Though it may be the same thing and I'm just dumb.

And that's it!

No Copyright Violations[edit]

No copyright violations have been detected per earwig. This section is a pass.

Broad[edit]

Article seems broad. Though I do wonder if there is more you could add to the history section since it seems weird to end it at 1972. Though, if that's all what is available then i'll be fine passing this section.

Neutral[edit]

Article seems neutral. This section is a pass.

Stable[edit]

No ongoing edit wars. This section is a pass.

Media[edit]

Images seem good. But I think that you should add an interactive map in the infobox like in Texas Recreational Road 2.