Talk:Interstate 27/GA1

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 05:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

There's a disambiguation link to Wayside, Texas, that needs repair in the article. Additionally there are several dead links in the references that should be fixable.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See below.
 * 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):
 * See below.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * In a sense, this actually counts against the article because I see something that's C-Class that wasn't prepared for the nomination. The article is too stable, even when the content of the Future section likely needs updates (I believe the Trans-Texas Corridors were cancelled, for instance; if they weren't the article needs some updates anyway.)
 * 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):
 * The map should have a caption in the infobox.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * For all of the issues in this article, I will decline to pass it, and I will decline to hold it. Take the time needed to fix things up and renominate it when ready.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For all of the issues in this article, I will decline to pass it, and I will decline to hold it. Take the time needed to fix things up and renominate it when ready.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead issues
 * The lead is not long enough to adequately summarize the content of the article. There should be at least two good paragraphs, one summarizing the RD and one for the History/Future based on the length of the article.


 * RD issues
 * This section is essentially only sources to one map, and that's Google Maps. I would recommend that at a minimum that the section receive supplemental citations to a good paper map or atlas as well.
 * There is inconsistent or lacking abbreviation usage.
 * The first time an Interstate is mentioned is the first sentence of the lead. The I-27 abbreviation is given in parentheses right away, which is a good thing. However after that sentence, all other mentions of Interstate Highways, even of different numbers, can be abbreviated.
 * US Highways aren't abbreviated in the text, but they are in the exit list and infobox. The first time a US Highway is mentioned, the name should be given in full with the abbreviation afterwards in parentheses, just like the Interstate example. All subsequent mentions of US Highways should be abbreviated.
 * Same thing with State Highways and Farm to Market Roads. Give the first mention in the text in full, and abbreviate all subsequent mentions.


 * History issues
 * More of the same issues related to abbreviation usage.
 * I would divide the section into subsections, say one for everything before it was designated an Interstate and after.


 * Future issues
 * This section needs to be updated to account for changes since it was written.


 * Exit list issues
 * The table should be updated to include a mileage column, and ideally, it should also be converted to the templates to improve formatting
 * The header doesn't comply with MOS:DTT or MOS:RJL by including the accessibility formatting required. Using jcttop will rectify that.
 * The required table footer is missing.
 * The business route's table is missing its mileposts as well.


 * References issues
 * The footnotes should be giving complete or nearly complete citation information.
 * Maps should be indicated as such with full publisher, cartographer, dates, accessdates (for online sources), etc.
 * Other sources should have authors, dates, titles, publishers, etc.
 * Newspaper names should be in italics (the work parameter, not the publisher if using templates. The publisher is the company that owns the paper.)
 * All online sources should have accessdates
 * Dead links should be repaired if possible under the aegis of WP:DEADREF.
 * There is quite a bit of WP:OVERLINKing in the footnotes. A publisher need only be linked the first time its mentioned in any footnote. Since FN1 is to the TcDOT Highway Designation Files (best to use TxDOT for that), TxDOT doesn't need to be linked any other footnotes.
 * Some of the map citations are confusing the cartography company that prepared them (HM Gousha) with the oil company that published them for distribution in their gas stations.
 * FN 10 is "Jack Faucett Associates, Inc. of Bethesda, Maryland under contract with the Federal Highway Administration, Economic Development History of Interstate 27 in Texas, accessed August 2007". Jack Faucett Associates would be the author and FHWA would be the publisher. "Economic Development History of Interstate 27 in Texas" would be the title of this source, and there should be a date provided in addition to when it was accessed/retrieved.

The article needs a good copy edit throughout the prose to address various issues mentioned above in my review. This copy edit should also work on tweaking the prose to a bit better quality. There is missing information (mileposts, updates on the Future section) that I would expect to see in the article. The references need a good review to make them consistent with each other and roughly complete. If additional photos can be added, I would add them. As it is, the photos present only present the image of an urban Interstate in the Lubbock area while the rural sections, which make up most of this highway, are not represented. More photos spaced throughout the article would be a good thing to present a better visual picture of what I-27 is.
 * Summary