Talk:Interstate 516/GA1

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 09:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Some of the comments below are outside of the standard criteria for a GA, and they won't be required for passage, but they're intended to help improve the article and make it really good.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There's a bit of a mismatch in singular vs. plural usage regarding concurrent highways. Even with the double name, it's still one single roadway. Otherwise, see the comments below for suggestions to improve the prose.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Note some (optional) suggestions below to improve the citations in terms of formatting.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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 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):
 * The map should have a caption supplied using map_notes. Also it would be nice if you could get the creator of the map to supply is cartographic sources for the map, something you'll need if you ever intend to take this article to WP:HWY/ACR or WP:FAC.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There are some basic prose fixes and some suggested citation formatting fixes. The prose fixes need to be made for promotion, while the others are suggested to make sure that a Good Article is actually a good article.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There are some basic prose fixes and some suggested citation formatting fixes. The prose fixes need to be made for promotion, while the others are suggested to make sure that a Good Article is actually a good article.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * A well-written lead does not need any citations because everything in it will be mentioned in the body. The exception is if you included a direct quotation, which always has to be cited no matter where it appears. Since you didn't, the footnotes in the lead can be dropped.
 * I usually aim to have a two-paragraph lead for an article of this size, the first introducing the topic and summarizing the RD section, and the second summarizing the history. If it's a longer article, I'd advocate for a third paragraph that either summarizes any other sections in the article save the RJL, or paragraph that expands upon the summary of the RD or History.


 * Route description
 * You only mention the hidden state route number once in the lead. How about adding that as a second sentence to the NHS paragraph to bulk it up a little? Both concepts seem to fit together, and then you avoid mentioning something in the lead that isn't quite mentioned elsewhere in the body the way it is in the lead. (Yes, you do mention SR 421 in the history, but in a slightly different context, and it seems weird to omit it completely from the RD given the concurrency between I-516 and SR 421.)
 * I would personally break the first paragraph into two just to avoid it looking like a big wall of text.
 * I would not link the "Augusta" portion of "Augusta Road". To me, it's just poor practice to link only half of a name and not the whole thing. Ditto linking the personal name half of "Jim Gillis Historic Savannah Parkway" later down in the paragraph.
 * "Burnsed Blvd" should be spelled out for consistency with the other road names which don't have their suffixes abbreviated.


 * History
 * I don't know that the subheadings are needed since each only has a single paragraph underneath.


 * Exit list
 * In the notes for exit 8, you used "U.S. 80" yet the destinations column uses "US 80". I should think we'd use a uniform format between the two, and the quotes aren't necessary. Also, you can abbreviate "SR 26 Connector" to match the destination column. (For that matter, you should abbreviate it after first usage in the prose as well.)


 * See also
 * The last entry in the list can be dropped since it's located in the infobox.
 * The two portals, since they're not the only items, can be linked using portal instead of portal-inline, giving you that box at the right of the section.
 * Honestly, I'm surprised that a link to the metro area wasn't integrated into the prose already.


 * References
 * I'd recommend that you switch all of the Georgia map citations to use cite GDOT map instead of calling cite map. The immediate benefit is that each will have the correct authorship, titles, scales, locations, dates and such applied. Also, if the links go dead in the future, or if GDOT reshuffles their website, we can change the template once and every article using it will get updated.
 * As a side note, I don't believe you've correctly attributed the correct names of the department to each map. Looking at footnote 18, as just an example, but the agency in question was GDOT, not GSHD starting in 1972, and that agency was called "State Highway Department of Georgia" from 1938 until 1971. Using the template as mentioned above will correct all of those to use the name of the agency as actually given on the maps.
 * A good map citation should note the scale of the map, or if the scale isn't given, we'd supply Scale not given. (This doesn't apply on maps with variable scales like Google Maps.) The citation should also note the author of the map (the {{para|cartography parameter is actually being deprecated in most situations since it's redundant to properly citing the authors of a map.) So for footnote 9, I would add {{para|author|Federal Highway Administration}} and whatever the scale is for that map.
 * Footnote 3 should be updated. FHWA removed the 2002 version of their Route Log and Finder List from their website, and they're redirecting people to the 2015 version published in January 2016 at a different URL.
 * Map citations should note the part of the map being cited, just as you'd specify the specific pages of a book that contain the cited information. In this case, you really should add {{para|inset}}, {{para|section}} or {{para|sections}} as appropriate. Of course, if the map lacks a grid, you can't cite the section based on that nonexistent grid, and if you aren't citing an inset, you can't cite it either. However, if either applies, it should be supplied.
 * I recommend pairing a Google Maps citation with one to an official DOT map when citing the RD section. Google's reputation for cartography isn't the best, and it can be assumed that a DOT knows where their highways are located. Let the official paper map verify the routing and the online map can be used for the satellite imagery alone.
 * I'd also recommend using  since you have more than 10 footnotes. This will tell a reader's browser to use multiple columns, each at least 30 em wide. (An em is a measurement of size related to the type size, previously the same width as a capital M. An em dash [–] is one em wide.) In any case, you get nice balanced columns of footnotes easily, but I only do that if there are more than 10 footnotes.


 * External links
 * The commons link can be given with {{tl|commons category}} to produce the box since there are other links for the bulleted list. If you do, make sure it's listed before the KML box to give priority to our sister site over the commercial mapping services linked from the KML box.

{{ping|Geography240}} just a ping to make sure you're aware that the initial review has been completed and that the article is on hold.  Imzadi 1979  →   10:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Imzadi1979, Geography240 hasn't edited on Wikipedia since August 30, and only had five edits during August. The article has already been on hold for over two weeks; you might want to start thinking about when the review should be concluded if no edits are made to address the issues you've raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing it out now as unsuccessful...  Imzadi 1979  →   04:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)