Talk:Pennsylvania Route 456/GA1

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

Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 19:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this.&mdash; CycloneIsaac – E-Mail 19:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Overall, not a bad job.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Honestly, I wouldn't type a whole paragraph about two short, insignificant bridges.
 * B. Focused:
 * I'm very sure a description of a 12 mile road could be (slightly) longer than that, and a Pennsylvania route usually has more history than that.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No controversial sections.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Although Dough4872 has done majority of the work.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * No pictures, but it will be okay without one.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * No pictures, but it will be okay without one.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

✅ but I still can't find the designation date, I just wrote a time period (between 1930-1940) that I know it was created ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ Fixed, I believe you are right. ✅ I kept most of the material in the 'Route description' section, but I moved some of it (creation dates and reconstruction date) to the 'History' section ✅ discussed this with you on IRC ✅
 * Comments
 * No designation date in the infobox?
 * Information about the two bridges should belong in the history more than the description. You only need a slight mention in the route description.
 * Box Beam → Box beam
 * Where on the road was the traffic count measured?
 * If you are going to talk about the bridge, maybe talk about when it was built?
 * You are missing the cartographer parameters in Cite map.
 * A KML file would be nice.
 * I might be wrong, but isn't Pennsylvania State Highway Agency PennDOT?
 * The part about the route not in the NHS is kinda unnecessary.
 * I recommend that you move the third paragraph of the Route description to history.
 * 'All of PA 456 has an annual average daily traffic of about 526 vehicles per day.' "All of" is redundant
 * Try to organize the route description from south to north, or west to east. The sentence about Little Cove Creek should be before the sentence about Licking Creek, I think.
 * There's a typo in the route description's third paragraph.
 * Now you've added more information to the description, I suggest merging the first 4 paragraphs together.
 * Instead of a separate paragraph on bridges, describe the bridges where the route passes it.

This articles still has many issues with citations and organization, and I think this would take lots of time to work on. I'm afraid that I will have to fail this article for now. You can renominate the article if you want to.&mdash; CycloneIsaac – E-Mail 22:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)