Talk:Interstate 440 (North Carolina)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Fredddie (talk · contribs) 04:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are too many simple MoS violations ( of, seasons, capitalized directions, among others).
 * Some poor word choices as well. "At Wake Forest Road, I-440 uses a diamond interchange..."  No it doesn't, cars on the road do.
 * You have a tendency to use abbreviations without defining them first. And then you're inconsistent.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Your references have inconsistent date formats, which is another MoS violation. Otherwise they look generally fine.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This article is in sore need of some wikilink love, especially the second half of the prose. It's fine to link to articles more than once.  There is an article for ASR, but I'll let you find it.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Some minor disagreements among editors, but nothing major.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold. I will give the standard seven day waiting period 14 days before I give a thumbs up or down on this article. I have two pieces of advice for the nominator.  Please take some time to learn some of the nuances of the WP:MOS.  Some of the issues I listed above are basic.  Also, in the future, I urge you to have a member of the WP:GoCE give articles a once-over before bringing it here.  If this were a higher level of review, I would have had a lengthy list of fixes. –Fredddie™ 04:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing and I will work on it. However could I maybe get 14 days as I will not have internet access starting sunday. Thanks--Ncchild (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thanks for communicating. –Fredddie™ 21:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So I have worked on some of the errors that were pointed out, most notably wording in the Rd and abbreviations. Also Imazdi has helped out a lot with MOS violations which was the other big problem here. As far as ref dates I don't really see an inconsistency so if you could point that out to me that would be great!--Ncchild (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The dates were fixed with this edit. For the future, you might want to check out this script, which will fix dates with one click.  I will look over what's been done. –Fredddie™ 21:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * are you still working on the article or have you completed changes regarding my concerns? –Fredddie™ 00:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that most of the changes were fixed. However I may be wrong--Ncchild (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you should give the article another look. –Fredddie™ 00:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright--Ncchild (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I had another look at the article and fixed some further items. After that, I'm lost on what needs to be done.--Ncchild (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you should give the article another look. –Fredddie™ 00:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright--Ncchild (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I had another look at the article and fixed some further items. After that, I'm lost on what needs to be done.--Ncchild (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Like your previous GANs, I could give you a long list of things to fix and then pass the article. However, it doesn't seem like you've learned anything from them. There are still MoS errors that I listed above that were not fixed. So, like I suggested before, have someone from the WP:GoCE look over the article and try again in a couple weeks. I am not passing the article today. –Fredddie™ 11:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have completed a copyedit of this article through the GOCE. It should be free of MOS-related problems. I encourage a renomination. Ping me if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)