Talk:County Route S1 (California)/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Imzadi  1979   →   00:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

I've done a cursory review of the article, and it is lacking in quality to be considered for GA status.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1a: There are abbreviations in use in the article that never specify what is being abbreviated. Please spell out full names on first mention before using the abbreviations thereafter. The lead does not summarize the article adequately, as there is no mention of the history in that section. 1b:There are bolding errors in the lead. Words or phrases should not be in bold in the lead unless plausible redirects exist for them, which in this case, they do not.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 2a: There is unreferenced material in the article. 2b: References 1 (cahighways.org) and 5 (aaroads.com) are both self-published sources and do no meet the criteria as reliable sources. Please remove the information sourced to those references, or find replacement references for the information. Additionally, there is a factual error in the article. The infobox says that the I-8 junction is in Laguna Hills, CA. That city is in Orange County and nowhere near I-8. The junction list has the correct location given however. Additionally, the Google Maps link should be updated to provide a link showing the road in question, instead of a reader attempting to verify the information being sent to the default home page for the website.
 * 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.:
 * This article was until today, a redirect to a section of a list article. I can't say that this article is stable since it was recently recreated. There will likely be a discussion forthcoming about merging the content of this article back into the list from whence it came. A discussion should have been started first about splitting the article back out. Additionally, all of the new content added to this article could have been added to the section of the list article first, and then consensus developed about splitting it back out as a separate article.
 * 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):
 * Technically this article meets this set of criteria, but there are issues with the photos. They all meet proper licensing requirements. The problem is that they are low-quality, and they have embedded captions in the photos, which is not really consistent with WP:IUP. The photos should be removed, and the photographer contacted to see about gaining permission to use higher-quality versions of the images without the embedded captions. Additionally, Reference 3 has links to PD photos that could be uploaded and added to this article that could be better additions than the current photos. The photos appear randomly placed on my screen, probably because the lead is so short in comparison to the infobox. The map in the infobox does not add encyclopedic value to the article. At first glance, one would assume that the subject road is the road in red that runs east–west across the map, when rather that is the path of I-8, and the subject is one of the sets of black lines. Please remove the map until a suitable replacement can be created, preferably one that contains an inset that helps identify where this map is situated in California.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I recommend that this article be failed at this time. From what I see, this is a rushed attempt to split an article out of the list that contained the content. It appears to me as though this article was nominated there in hopes that it would squeak by on the minimum amount of work to gain GA status. Barring that, my opinion is that this editor hoped that someone else's feedback would point out the flaws during a hold period, also allowing the article to gain GA status. Then that status would be used to justify leaving the article un-merged from the list article. Properly, the additional content added to this article over the pre-merger version of the article should have been included in the section of the list article devoted to this county road. Then a discussion should have been started about splitting the section off as a separate article, the result of which could have been to recreate the original article with the revised content. Only then should the article have been brought to GAN after it was scrutinized against the GA criteria.  Imzadi  1979   →   00:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I recommend that this article be failed at this time. From what I see, this is a rushed attempt to split an article out of the list that contained the content. It appears to me as though this article was nominated there in hopes that it would squeak by on the minimum amount of work to gain GA status. Barring that, my opinion is that this editor hoped that someone else's feedback would point out the flaws during a hold period, also allowing the article to gain GA status. Then that status would be used to justify leaving the article un-merged from the list article. Properly, the additional content added to this article over the pre-merger version of the article should have been included in the section of the list article devoted to this county road. Then a discussion should have been started about splitting the section off as a separate article, the result of which could have been to recreate the original article with the revised content. Only then should the article have been brought to GAN after it was scrutinized against the GA criteria.  Imzadi  1979   →   00:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)