Talk:Delaware State Route System/GA1

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

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 19:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. My strategy is to give overall comments about the article, then go through it section by section, check all the references, and finally to check it against the Good Article criteria. I'll let the nominator know when I'm ready for their response.  Rcsprinter123    (comment)  @ 19:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Overall comments
Created, written and nominated in one day, this article does look strong at first glance, and I can see it passing easily, with its author experienced and well used to producing GA-standard articles. There are a number of sections, all well-wikilinked and illustrated and relevant to the subject, and following the structure which is standard for this category of article. For references, there seems to be an adequate number, backed up with some further reading, so the content is largely verifiable. Checklinks reports no dead links, which is fine.

Section analysis
After the review has been conducted, editors addressing the article may mark individual points below off by placing done after the item.


 * Infobox
 * Is there no map of the state routes available, in the style of eg File:Washington state highways.svg?
 * Put in a request for a map at WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Requests.  Dough   4872   21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "little white signs at intersections" - best phrase available?
 * Changed to "little white markers" but that is what best describes them.  Dough   4872   21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Improvements continue to be made to the system." this is quite broad. Needs specifying or removing.
 * Removed.  Dough   4872   21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Numbering
 * Perhaps you could say why "Delaware does not prohibit duplication between route numbers of different systems" (and give a source)
 * There is no specific reason why, and the 2008 road map shows that there is duplication through the presence of both US 202 and DE 202 and US 9 and DE 9 within the state.  Dough   4872   21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In the caption of this image, Wyoming ought to be linked or changed to "Wyoming, Delaware" to avoid confusion with the state
 * Changed to "town of Wyoming" to avoid any confusion, though it should be implied that the Wyoming being referred to is in Delaware given the subject of the article.  Dough   4872   21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Highway systems
 * Any chance File:Delaware Byways.png could be a little bigger? And maybe vectorised?
 * Increased to 100 pixels. Unfortunately, the source where the shield came from only has it in raster form.  Dough   4872   21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "known for their scenic [...] qualities" - what does "known for" mean? Don't want no weasel
 * Reworded.  Dough   4872   21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * History
 * This section could maybe be subdivided a little
 * Added third-level headers.  Dough   4872   21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "In the 18th century, the King's Highway ran between.." - no clue what the King's Highway is, and unsourced
 * King's Highways were roads specified to be built by the King of England, as mentioned a couple sentences earlier. Also, this sentence is sourced to the book about the Dupont Highway.  Dough   4872   21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think Highway Gothic is a typeface, not a font
 * Changed to FHWA Series.  Dough   4872   21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "with completion of the highway in 2018" - what about the completion? The sentence needs a verb.
 * Fixed.  Dough   4872   21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No other issues

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Looks like this passes all the criteria. Nomination passed!  Rcsprinter123    (reason)  @ 20:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)