Talk:Arizona State Route 72/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer:  V C  05:34, 16 May 2011 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I am putting this article on hold for you to address the following issues.  V C  03:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am failing this GA review because the nominator has not responded in over a week. The nominator is welcome to renominate this article in the future.  V  C  16:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead
 * "runs through the communities of Vicksburg, McVay, Utting, and Bouse in desert terrain." I would leave out the first three communities from the Lead, since they are so tiny and they do not have articles.  You can leave them in the Route description.  V  C  03:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. &mdash;  P C  B  03:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Route description
 * "SR 72 begins at SR 95 at an intersection within the southern city limit of Parker; the continuation of SR 72 is SR 95 which heads into central Parker" Can you provide a citation for the city limit statement, such as a map of the Parker city limits?  The intersection is in the middle of the desert 12 miles south of the town-like part of Parker.  Also, I would explain the intersection more, like that it is a T-intersection where SR 95 turns from north–south to east–west.  V  C  03:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed. &mdash;  P C  B  03:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The intersection information is fine now; however, the Parker city limit issue has not been addressed. Incidentally, the map shows Parker to be at the intersection of SR 72 and SR 95, which is wrong; Parker is on the Colorado River.  If you cannot find a source regarding the city limits, then you will need to change the wording to indicate the junction is south of Parker.  V  C  04:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Google Maps delineates city limits in orange. I agree that the map is wrong and needs to be corrected. &mdash;  P C  B  00:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see orange city limits, but I see grey areas that I think are identical to what you are references. Also, I believe you are correct in this instance regarding Parker, but like many things with Google, I do not think that is a reliable guide that can be applied everywhere else.  For instance, many built-up areas in Maryland are shaded grey but are not incorporated.  I would like a more reliable source than Google for the Parker city limits.  V  C  05:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "As it runs throught the city" Bouse is a 600-person unincorporated community, so I would prefer you use "town" or "village" to "city."  V  C  03:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Adjusted. &mdash;  P C  B  03:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) who is responsible" Change "who" to "which" and put a comma before "which."  V  C  03:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. &mdash;  P C  B  03:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

History
 * The first sentence is confusing. Did US 60 follow part of today's route?  When was SR 72 extended to Hope?  Please provide the missing years where appropriate.  V  C  03:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Adjusted &mdash;  P C  B  03:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was still confused by what you wrote, so I took a look at the maps displayed at AARoads and I noticed several errors in your description:
 * The 1930 map shows SR 74 on what is now US 60. SR 72 is not marked yet.  The 1931 map shows US 60 has replaced SR 74.  SR 72 is now marked.  It is reasonable to use either 1930 or 1931 for the year SR 72 was created.  It is not reasonable to say the highway originally ended at SR 74 because that route was likely changed to US 60 by the time SR 72 was created.
 * The late 1920s maps show AZ 74 with a curvier, more northern alignment that passed through Vicksburg. Since the modern alignment was likely there by the time SR 72 was assigned, I do not think Vicksburg needs to be mentioned.
 * Between the 1951 map and the 1958 map, SR 95 was rerouted from its old route from Quartzsite to Bouse to its present route from Quartzsite to the SR 72 intersection. The road from the intersection to Parker is unmarked, so it is possible SR 95 extended north to Parker by then.  SR 95 definitely extended to Parker by the 1963 map.
 * This source seems to state otherwise. &mdash;  P C  B  00:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think you can use that source, which indicates an abandonment of right-of-way, to support a change in designation. If the right-of-way is abandoned, then the portion of road is removed from service, either entirely or as a state highway.  To me, that would indicate the state highway being reconstructed on a new alignment.  The state would not abandon a right-of-way if they were simply changing route signs.  V  C  05:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please rewrite the History to better match what the maps portray.  V C  04:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "This section was added as part of a northern extension of SR 95." The reference used for this sentence is the 1971 map.  Is there a map closer to 1965 you can use to support this statement?  V  C  03:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish I had one. So far, I haven't found any online. &mdash;  P C  B  03:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not the best situation, but I will not hold this article back for this point.  V C  04:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The information in the last three sentences does not seem notable. Instead of talking about right-of-way acquisitions, I would mention the specific improvements completed or planned from using that ROW.  You should be able to find out the specific use or planned use in the ROW documents.  V  C  03:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)