Talk:Minnesota State Highway 610/GA1

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

Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Replies:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I may be wrong here, but reference 7 is cited after a comma in the middle of a sentence, which violates MOS. There was a redundant phrase "signalized signal" in the History, but I replaced it with "traffic light."
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Assuming you viewed online copies of the newspapers, can you add links to the online newspaper articles? I am not sure the links are required, but they would be helpful to have for people who want to read the article.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I would like to see more detail in the Route description on the interchanges. The second sentence says the highway "has several interchanges."  What roads does MN 610 have interchanges with?  Also, more details on the major interchanges with MN 242, MN 47, and US 10 would be great.  For the MN 47/US 10 part, the wording suggests (mostly by omission) that these two interchanges are separate and there is some distance between them, when in fact they are adjacent and interconnected.  MN 610's interchange with MN 47 is partial and is used to access US 10 west, since MN 610's interchange with US 10 east is also partial.  These details should be reflected in the Junction list as well. I think the last sentence of the Route description would go better in the Lead or History, where it can be tied in with when the highway was legislatively authorized. Is there any information about widening of the freeway at the same time as the second bridge across the Mississippi was built? The Future section mentions the freeway with be in the median of CR 81; can you add in details on where exactly the freeway will end after the current project, since MN 610 will eventually follow CR 81 for about a mile? According to the Layouts linked in the page for Reference 6, the freeway is planned to end at Elm Creek Boulevard with ramps to CR 81 and a stub continuing a short distance in the median.
 * 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):
 * There are no images aside from the shield, which is fine.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I will put this article on hold for now. Let me know if some of the above suggestions are not necessary or what I can do to improve on future reviews. &mdash; Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I will put this article on hold for now. Let me know if some of the above suggestions are not necessary or what I can do to improve on future reviews. &mdash; Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Intra-sentence references are fine. Everything before the comma is cited to the first reference, and everything after is cited to the next reference.
 * The online versions of the newspapers I viewed were purchased through the Newsbank service. There's no direct link I can add that others will see.
 * In fairness, the first several interchanges aren't that notable to get individual mentions in the prose, especially with the full exit list at the end of the article.
 * The legal definition in other states is usually a part of the RD section, since it is a description of the route. It shouldn't be in the lead without being mentioned in the body of the article.
 * I've made some additions to reflect your suggestions.  Imzadi  1979   →   23:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With the changes you have made, this article will be passed. Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)