Talk:Nissan Parkway/GA1

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 23:19, 3 July 2018 (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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Review

 * Could be because I'm tired but I had to read the lead several times to make sense of it. Will come back and suggest changes (if any are truly necessary) but wanted to note as a reminder to myself.
 * Looking at source 1, I learned how Bing maps shows the county so that was neat. What in that source proves it is a divided highway? I'm sure it's there, just a question of ignorance.
 * The map itself, the same way the interchange is described as a cloveleaf interchange instead of just an interchange. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  21:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The only reference to Nissan Parkway in source 2 I can find during a search of the PDF doesn't seem to match up with this particular road. Suggest incorporating a page number into the source or use of a page number template or other method to provide specificity around page(s) cited in the two instances.
 * Added page number and updated reference. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  21:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 2017 AADT available at source and can be updated in article.
 * Updated. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  21:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I added another instance of Bing to clarify all information in proceeding paragraph sourced from it (think this can sometimes be unclear and appear like information is unsourced when citation exists in middle of sentence)
 * Thanks. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  21:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it standard practice in these articles to use government notices in newspapers as citation for announcement of something? To me the source isn't an announcement it's an RFP (solicitation for bids) and could/should be denoted as such.
 * I've seen it used (and accepted) in other GAs before. But I'll mention the solicitation of bids too. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  21:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason that this source is necessary given the subsequent source (sentence could read The parkway was completed by December 2002.
 * No reason to have less info really, but I'll remove it if you want me to. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  21:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No issues with images, copyright, or edit warring.

Discussion
Will start this review in the next couple of days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's obviously been more than a couple days. Comments for article text above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed almost everything mentioned. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  21:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm closing as a pass. Congrats. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)