Talk:Japan National Route 58/GA1

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

Reviewer: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 19:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Figure since I'm reviewing Shibuya Route, I might as well look at this one too. Intriguing article for a road that is definitely unusual.

Prose and MOS
The article has well-written and interesting prose. Except for the ref issues (see below), I don't see any MOS violations. Definitely a pass in both of these fields.

Coverage
Only looks at the relevant aspects of the route, and while it reports on a lot on what is on the side of the road, it is not overdetailed and serves to demonstrate the broader context of American influence on Okinawa, which also contributed to this highway. There isn't any bias here either that I notice. Pass in all three

Stability
Doesn't even have daily edits, let alone edit wars. Passed

Pictures and copyvio
Earwig detects to problems, and given the formatting of the sources, I don't think there are any copyvios. Good use of the OSM map and relevent pictures, all of which are free to use. Passed on both of these fronts.
 * Actually, on second thought, I changed the wording of the sentence on Chatan as it resembled the Japan Times article a bit too much. But yes, I think its better now and still a pass.


 * Thanks again for taking the time to review this nomination that's been languishing for several months! Must have been a typo I copied and pasted throughout the article with that distance discrepancy, even the Google Maps reference had the distance between the last two junctions at about 0.22 km rather than the 0.3 that was posted before.  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️  01:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for making the changes. Another user noticed my review for Shibuya Route and notified me that Google Maps is a reliable source for distances and has good editorial control (even with the feedback stuff, the map data itself is from reliable datasets), so articles using it have passed not only GAN but also FAC. Sorry for the mistaken suggestions and being so particular over distances. It might take a while for me to finish this review because I've been busy with other stuff, but it should definitely be done by the original one week deadline. MSG17 (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, I had another article pass GA review with a Google Maps reference, so I was a little confused about that, but it doesn't hurt to have several references for the length; however, I will go back an restore the google references alongside the others for this article and Shibuya Route.  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️  02:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Left some more comments. MSG17 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've touched up on everything you pointed out up 'til this point. I even added a little bit more to the history section.  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️  04:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! I really appreciated the history you added on. All the issues I raised are now solved, so I will promote this article to GA.
 * Thanks for taking the time to review and make some improvements to these two articles, it's been a pleasure working with you again. See you around,  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano  ☕️  23:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)