Talk:Roads and freeways in metropolitan Phoenix/GA2

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

*1a) beelines for downtown? Not sure if that's formal...
 * Regarding previous issues raised at last GAR - addressed - not sure why MTF has been slow about your map request. I left a note at the requests page...
 * Thank you!
 * Fixed.
 * 1.4 - lost the C in Continuing, duplexing needs to be wikilinked
 * Fixed.
 * 2 - seems pointless to have (s) in the heading as there's only one
 * Fixed.
 * 3 - extensions of routes should probably be merged with the route in section 1
 * I don't understand what this means.
 * You should probably merge the description of the route with the description in sec 1 if it's just an extension of the route and not a whole new route.
 * I'd rather not merge the "Future" piece about Loop 202 with the "Existing" piece because it's not in existence yet -- and I do specify which particular piece of the Loop 202 that I discuss in each section (Future and Existing). Please let me know if this is absolutely neccessary for GA and eventually FA status, if so then I'll find a way to fix it. Thanks. Rko202 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4.4 - Interstate 10 Reliever - is that the official name?
 * It used to be, but I guess it was dropped. Fixed.
 * 6 - not sure that this deserves its own section.
 * Fixed.
 * 7 - spell out 30
 * Fixed.
 * 1b) - the article starts a bit abruptly.
 * I'm not sure how to fix this.
 * Just add a sentence to the start of the article sort of introducing the topic. You jump right into the topic with the first sentence.
 * I tried to find a GA to look at as a model, but they all seem to do this.
 * Just write a sentence introducing the topic.
 * Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rko202 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5 - not comfortable with list in a GA. Maybe make it a table at least, if it isn't converted to prose?
 * Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rko202 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2 - there are entire sections missing sources.
 * Fixed.
 * Okay, but they need to be inline refs.
 * Which in particular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rko202 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All of them. You cannot have external links in the article; you must use ref tags. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Rko202 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the old external links need to be removed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rko202 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3 - a history section may be necessary. Currently a lot of it is briefly explained in the lead...
 * Much of the history is covered in the Funding section.
 * 4-5 - pass
 * 6 - again, need a map, but I don't know what's up with MTF on that one...
 * Found one for temporary use from the commons. Rko202 (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

On hold This article needs a bit of cleanup before GA and especially for ACR and FA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please let the reviewer cross stuff out. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Passing. I'm not completely confident in the structure, but this is an unconventional article in general (as it's not on a highway like the vast majority of USRD articles). You may need to reevaluate it again at ACR or FAC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)