Talk:Interstate 270 (Colorado)/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Imzadi  1979   →  23:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Sand Creek needs to be disambiguated.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Please see some of the MOS fixes below which impact the quality of the prose. The lead needs more information added from the history section.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The references are fine, but a few formatting notes below.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * A few notes about the highway need to be addressed that affect all three sections of the article.
 * 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):
 * I would add a caption to the map using . There are no other images/media. It would be nice to get a photo, but not required.
 * I added a photo. --P C B  01:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would add a caption to the map using . There are no other images/media. It would be nice to get a photo, but not required.
 * I added a photo. --P C B  01:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I will place the article on hold for you to resolve the issues listed below.  Imzadi  1979   →  00:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * About the little segment issue, I found out that it is part of the route, its that the mileposts reset. Thanks to a roadgeek site. --P C B  00:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I have fixed all the problems mentioned. If I did something wrong please inform me. Thanks for the review. --P C B  03:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are still unresolved issues, and a few small things I found after the first review. Additionally, Admrboltz has a few comments below my review. One of his is partially address, but the other is not.  Imzadi  1979   →  08:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * 1) I-270 should be bolded inside the parentheses in the lead sentence. The parentheses themselves are not bolded though.
 * 2) U.S. Highway 36 should have (US 36) added after it. Then abbreviate all other US Highways in the prose.
 * 3) I-76 and I-70 should be abbreviated on first usage since the convention was established in the first sentence.</>


 * Route description
 * 1) The RD does not cover the first segment. Even if that segment is not considered part of I-270 in some definition, it's still signed as I-270 and marked as I-270 on maps. Please cover it in the prose.
 * 2) Unlink the highways in the RD that were linked in the lead. The article is not long enough to require relinking.
 * 3) Please provide the "SH 2" abbreviation after the first state highway mentioned in the article, and then use abbreviations exclusively afterwards.
 * 4) "where it has an exit at State Highway 35, Quebec Street, a short highway..." put the street name in parentheses like "where it has an exit at State Highway 35 (Quebec Street), a short highway..."


 * History
 * 1) There are a few issues with the sentence: "Construction began on the segment between I-76 and I-25 in April of 1993, but this portion is not formally defined as part of the route."
 * 2) "April of 1993" should have the "of" removed per the MOS.
 * 3) This seems to resolve an issue below in the exit list, but you need to explain something here. If it's not formally part of I-270, what is that section? I assume that it is signed on the road and marked on maps as I-270. What is the number for this road if it isn't I-270? Is this section not a part of the Interstate Highway System officially? You'll need to expand upon this discrepancy and clarify the situation. A hatnote above the Exit list table may need to be added to reinforce this point and clarify the change in mileage numbers.
 * 4) For the rest of the history section, unlink the previously linked highways, and abbreviate their names for consistency.
 * 5) "between Interstate 70 to Vasquez Boulevard" should have the "to" changed to "and".
 * 6) Please add a date to the infobox.


 * Exit list
 * 1) The table header needs to be changed from   to just   per the older updates to MOS:RJL.
 * 2) Is there a source for the milepost information? It should be added to the column header.
 * 3) First line should have the link changed to Denver–Boulder Turnpike with an en-dash. You probably should combine this with second line as it's one interchange.
 * 4) Third line should have the markers removed from the notes column per MOS:RJL and the notes simplified.   (Looking at Google Maps for the interhchange gets "No eastbound exit from I-270 to westbound I-76; no eastbound entrance to I-270 from westbound I-76") Why are there two numbers in the mile column for this line?
 * 5) Fourth line: are you sure this is numbered? Google Maps doesn't show an exit number.
 * 6) Sixth line: use jct to format the line. As it is, it's inconsistent (and wrong) in format. Flip the order so that SH 35 is first and I-70 is second. The junction there is SH 35 to I-70, not To I-70 and SH 35.
 * I'm not quite sure how to do this. --<font color="IIJJ3400">P <font color="IIJJ3400">C <font color="IIJJ3400">B  15:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * --Admrboltz (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was it. I seem to have forgotten how to do the jct template. Thanks. --<font color="IIJJ3400">P <font color="IIJJ3400">C <font color="IIJJ3400">B  23:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The table needs jctbtm added to the bottom of the table in place of the   per more recent updates to MOS:RJL.


 * References and External links
 * 1) Add a   to the references that are links to PDFs. Not all browsers can display PDF documents, and not all browsers are set to display the PDF icon after the link.
 * 2) If there are specific page numbers or map section numbers, please add them to the references
 * 3) Please add   to the Rocky Mountain News citations. You should also link the newspaper's name in the first citation to it.
 * 4) Article titles should be in Title Case. (In other words, capitalize the first and last word in the title, all words over 5 letters long, all verbs and all nouns.) While changing titles, you're allowed, in fact encouraged, to make minor changes like changing "U.S. 36" → "US&amp;nbsp;36" in the title since that's only affecting formatting and making it consistent with the formatting of the article.
 * 5) For the external link, expand out the displayed text to include the name name of the website.


 * General comments
 * 1) The space between US and a number or SH and a number needs to be "non-breaking" which means you need to use &amp;nbsp; instead of a space. That way, if the highway number appears at the end of a line, the "US" and the "36" won't appear on separate lines. The non-breaking space will keep them linked without the line breaking them. (Line width varies based on how big an individual reader has his web browser window, or if he's using something like an iPhone with a smaller screen.)
 * 2) The article is looking better, but there are still some unfinished changes in the list above. The biggest is explaining in the history how one section was formerly not part of the Interstate and added afterward (not the formally previously used in the article). A sentence should be added to the lead at the end along the lines of "An additional section of I-270 was added around the turn of the 21st century." If you can find some news or other sources on why they extended the freeway decades after it was first opened, that would be valuable to add to the article.


 * Unsolicited advise:
 * 1) Reviewing the article, you have all but one of your references cited to CDOT. There are press articles out there on the freeway, I suggest you use them so that you meet the WP:GNG. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Also, is there a reason you are using ISO dates, instead of Month Date, Year? --Admrboltz (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the remaining issues. I would advise trying to locate more secondary sources. http://news.google.com in addition to Google's regular search can help locate some. As well, contact some libraries to see what resources they can provide, especially if you aim to nominate this article higher up the assessment scale. For now, the article does meet the GA criteria. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  04:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)