Talk:Interstate 696/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Will review! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * this is a very well written article. Just a few comments:

That's all for now, folks. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "the speed limits were raised to 70 miles per hour (110 km/h) and some interchanges were reconfigured in 2006." - what was it before? (I see that it's mentioned below)
 * move image down so it doesn't squeeze text?
 * "After passing through the Mixing Bowl" - shouldn't Mixing Bowl be in italics as it is above? I see a couple of other places where it's not italicized. Should it be or not? Be consistent.
 * "all of I-696-204" - where does the 204 come from?
 * "and would later close to complete three of the nine interchanges on the segment" - don't understand what this means
 * "Arguments between local officials were so bad" - suggest "so intense" as more encyclopedic.
 * the problems of the Orthodox Jewish community mentioned in the lede aren't covered in the article's body.
 * picture caption: "the once-abandoned portion of I-696 appears to the left" - looks still abandoned in the photo.

 Imzadi 1979  →   19:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Replies
 * I can add the old limit.
 * It's only affecting a few lines, but if I move that map down, it's disconnected from the paragraph that discusses that location.
 * Dropping italics, although I think it's fine to use it on first mention when discussing it as a name, rather than later when using the name to refer to the place. This would be the difference between using words as the symbols for their meaning/concepts vs. using them as words.
 * Odd typo, dropped.
 * The freeway opened, but then closed again to complete three of the nine interchanges.
 * Changed
 * It's in there: "The community of Orthodox Jews in Oak Park wanted the freeway built to pass to the north of their suburb. When this was deemed to be futile, the community asked for changes to the design that would mitigate the impact of the freeway to the pedestrian-dependent community. Final approval in 1981 of the freeway's alignment was contingent on these mitigation measures."
 * Tweaked the caption.

ok MathewTownsend (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Congratulations. Good work! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
 * b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
 * b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * c. no original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * no edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * no edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: