Talk:Farm to Market Road 1957/GA1

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 22:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Review will be forthcoming in the next day or so. My Internet access is temporarily spotty, but I have printed off the article to start writing up comments that I will post soon.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

According to the link checker in the toolbox, the disambiguation and external links are fine.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See below for prose comments by article section.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See below.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Looks fine, but some additional material to help fill out the content of the article a little more would be nice. To "pad" articles on shorter highways without a lot of detail, I typically include a paragraph with some mention about whether or not the highway is on the National Highway System, and what the traffic counts are. In the latter case, I provide the highest and lowest counts to give some perspective on the range of traffic levels, which also answer the question of "who" uses the roadway. Such a paragraph can also include any legal definitions or tourist route/memorial highway designations that a highway carries if applicable.
 * 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):
 * There are no photos in use. Technically, there's a licensing issue with the marker from the top of the infobox. The file descirption page implies that created the design (he only created the currently used digital copy of that design), and that he released it into the public domain. The design would have been created by TxDOT and released by them into the PD; this type of misattribution of creation/ownership is pretty standard among most of the marker graphics used by USRD, and at some point the project needs to correct the situation. However, for the purposes of this GAN review, the important detail is that the design is in the PD.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Placing on hold to allow time to make some copy editing and formatting changes.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Placing on hold to allow time to make some copy editing and formatting changes.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead comments
 * There's no mention of the Urban Road designation. That's something that should be in the lead, and it would allow you to have the boldface mention in the lead where it belongs better.
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fairly standard, but not required, to just supply the abbreviation in parentheses in the lead sentence. In other words, you'd have "Farm to Market Road 1957 (FM 1957)". Note that the parentheses are not in boldface, just the full name and the abbreviation.
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The length is misformatted. it should be "15.983 mi highway/roadway/etc". Don't assume the reader knows you mean that the roadway is 15.983 miles in length; a beltway could have that as a diameter of the circle around a city/urban area. Also, the noun shouldn't appear before the conversion.
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The infobox is set to round the converted length to 0 decimal places, which isn't consistent with the rest of the article.
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Information repeated in the lead, that is cited in the body of the article, does not need a citation in the lead unless it's a direct quotation or something controversial or counter-intuitive. I removed the footnotes from the lead because the information there didn't qualify for redundant sourcing.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Route description comments
 * Given the overall length of the article, I don't think you need to relink the intersecting FMs. That's just a personal opinion though, so feel free to disagree.
 * However, the "FM 3487 (Culebra Road)" link shouldn't have the road name as part of the displayed link, if the link remains.
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The road name should not be in boldface. Boldfacing is discouraged outside of the lead. I noticed that it is a redirect although no other articles link through that term, so it should be mentioned, and boldfaced in the lead. (Personally, I don't think that the redirect is necessary because no articles link to it, but that's just my thoughts.)
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph is mis-cited. The whole thing appears to be cited to the UR 1957 designation file and Google Maps. The GMaps footnote should be moved ahead of the sentences on UR 1957 to clarify that the rest of the paragraph is cited to that source alone. The prose could use some copy editing as well. I would reword and format it something like (additions in italics):
 * "enters the San Antonio city limits.[2] Now five lanes wide, with two lanes in each direction and a center turn lane, the legal definition of FM 1957 becomes legally defined as changes to Urban Road 1957;[3] . However however, it remains signed as FM 1957.[2] (This would also avoid the situation where the footnotes appear in reverse numerical order; having <sup[3][2] isn't wrong, per se, but it looks sloppy.)
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Another personal preference, but since they're called "highways" in Texas, the usage of the word "route" to refer to the roadway feels quite jarring. Maybe it's a bit pedantic, but "route" implies the course the roadway follows, not the roadway itself in my mind. In other words, a highway follows a route, but it isn't the route itself. (I make an exception for roadways in states where they're called "state route" or just "route", but that's not the case for Texas.) Since the full name of the highway includes the word "road", that would be another good word to use for generic mentions of the subject.
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * State Highways are mentioned by abbreviation on first usage, which is not a good practice. The full name should be used on first reference for readers not familiar with what the abbreviations mean. So, the sentence should read something like, "... the road (or roadway) passes State Highway 211 (SH 211)...". Later on, the I-410 abbreviation for Interstate 410 should be given because the abbreviation is used in the junction list.
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, spell out the agency name in "an NSA data center".
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "recently-built, though patchy, residential developments" can't be attributed to Google Maps. The residential developments can, but not the "recently built, though patchy" part. (Note that if you can provide a source for that, adverbs that end in "-ly" are not hyphenated to their adjectives.)
 * Fixed I provided a citation to a USGS page with PD satellite imagery from 1974 to 2011. -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * History comments
 * Along the lines of comments above, I would rename the subsections to "Previous designation" and "Current designation" as they are separate designations of the same number, not separate routes of the same highway.
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Farm to Market Road 1610" should be piped to display the abbreviation only.
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "present-day Interstate 410", again, use the abbreviation. The junction list does, and the RD should have that added, so why not use it here as well for consistency?
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "In 1957, ..." why not use, "The next year" to avoid "...in 1956. In 1957" appearing side by side?
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Farm to Market Road 3487"... full name when others are abbreviation is not consistent.
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * " TxDOT started ..." Who's TxDOT? You've never mentioned them before this point, and the full name is not used. (TxDOT should be added as a piped link to the maint in the infobox for consistency with other USRD articles, btw.)
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "... Urban Road 1957. ...UR 1957 " The UR abbreviation was never defined next to the full name. Don't assume your reader will make the connection.
 * Fixed Since it has been explained in the lead, I just abbreviated the first mention. -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Junction list comments
 * Personally, I would combine the last two lines of the table. I would make the entry something like:  and then use Roadway continues as Potranco Road  . This would avoid having duplicate mileposts for what is the same intersection.
 * It's a convention I borrowed from California, where it's standard. -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean it's right. That's still a single intersection, and single intersections/interchanges are supposed to have a single line per MOS:RJL. I have made the change myself accordingly.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the interchange with SH 121 has an exit number, I would include that in the notes with something like Exit # on SH 121
 * SH 151 doesn't have exit numbers. -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * References and External links comments
 * There's overlinking here. You can add no to all but the first usage of TxDOT to avoid linking Texas Department of Transportation in all but the first footnote.
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The EL section looks wrong without anything. I would try to add some applicable link. If you had photos, you could use commons category-inline after a bullet point to provide something for the EL section that isn't a template box. Are there any roadgeek webpages out there on FM 1957, or the FM system in general that could be used as an EL to give the section something?
 * Google searches for "Potranco Road" and "FM 1957" show nothing of value, except for a press release from a Bexar County commissioner with plans to widen and improve Potranco west of Loop 1604. I'll add that later. -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added two links of a more general nature so that the section isn't empty. The links didn't have to be about FM 1957 specifically to be useful in justifying the section.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also not something required of GAs, but Portal:U.S. Roads is a featured portal. I highly encourage editors to add links to it in a See also section to every article on a highway from a state that doesn't have its own dedicated highway/road portal. (CA, MD, MI, NY and WA have them.) If there are no other internal links to insert into a See also section (remember you can't duplicate links already present in the body of the article), I use portal-inline to make the link instead of portal. Since this is a Texas highway, I'd add both and  as bullet points in the section.
 * Fixed -happy5214 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Something that I forgot to mention, but that I fixed myself, is the issue of non-breaking spaces. It's a best practice to use a non-breaking space,  between the alphabetical and the numerical portions of highway names, both the full and abbreviated forms, instead of plain spaces. That way the "FM" and the "1957" won't appear on separate lines if the web browser needs to break the line at that point.
 * Having done that and fixed a few other minor things, the article is ready to pass.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)