Talk:U.S. Route 101/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dylan620 (talk · contribs) 02:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm a little intimidated going in, as this will be by far the largest article I've yet reviewed... but seven months is an unacceptable wait for a review, I'm open to a challenge, and I do love the open road. I should be able to start looking at this within the next few days. Dylan 620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking this article up for review. I don't mind a wait given how long it is, and if you have any specific questions I am happy to answer them here.  Sounder Bruce  03:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem . I've just finished a full read-through of the article, and I have the following pieces of preliminary feedback:
 * The prose itself is excellent. The writing is professional and engaging with proper grammar throughout. Excellent work!
 * Some articles are linked too many times. For one example, Bayshore Freeway is wikilinked five times: first in the lede, then in §Route_description, next in the California subsection, and twice in §New_alignments_and_freeways (in a paragraph and an image caption). There are many more cases like this; the article uses a whole lotta blue, which unfortunately hinders its readability a bit. I also see several red links, but I think these should be kept as they seem like reasonable topics for future articles and the targets themselves are not excessively linked.
 * Reduced to what I think is necessary, as MOS:DL was amended to allow for some duplicate links in their first use within a major section if it is helpful to readers, namely when first used in the History section.
 * I find it a little odd that mile figures are hyphenated and yet kilometer figures are not (example: 40-mile (64 km)). I also think it would make sense to abbreviate mile(s) to mi, so as to maintain consistency with the usage of the km abbreviation.
 * This is handled by the conversion template, which cites MOS:UNITNAMES as a reason to not hyphenate between the value and symbol in that manner.
 * El Camino Real is italicized on its first usage in the lede, but is not italicized again for the rest of the article; it is the only alternate name to be italicized at all.
 * Fixed, though I may have to add it back in the route description since it is a Spanish term.
 * I anticipate reading the article in full at least once more during the course of my review. Knock on wood, I should be able to analyze images, sources, and copyright within the next two to three days. Dylan 620  (he/him • talk • edits) 20:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wanted to drop a quick update that the full review is nearly finished – barring unforeseen meatspace developments, I should have it posted tomorrow late morning or early afternoon (ET). Dylan 620  (he/him • talk • edits) 01:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I tip my hat to you, Bruce; you've crafted a well-written, well-researched, and broad article on a major highway that runs along nearly the entire West Coast of the United States. It is quite close to meeting the GA criteria but needs just a liiiiiiittle more work to reach that mark. Putting on hold for now. Dylan 620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Images: All of the images used in the article contribute encyclopedic value to it and are licensed appropriately. There are a couple that were taken from copyrighted Flickr uploads, but comparisons between the Flickr license histories and the Commons upload dates confirm that those images were uploaded to Commons at times when the Flickr uploads were licensed under Creative Commons; therefore, the CC license applies in both of those cases, and the images are safe to use. I would like for alt text to be added, but as that would be going into FAC territory, I will not factor it into this review. Image review passes .
 * Sources: This is where things get a little shakier. I'm not concerned about the veracity of the information here – a "spot check" of over 30 or 40 sources confirmed that those sources verified the information they were used to cite. The sources themselves appear to be reputable, as well. However, there are some irregularities that I believe should be addressed. Source review on hold : see concerns below.
 * Refs 2, 8, and 53 are dead links.
 * All fixed.
 * Refs 103, 149, and 150 mention the San Francisco Chronicle as their source, but the links lead to the website for SFGate instead.
 * Until 2017, SFGate hosted its own content alongside copies of Chronicle articles; the newsrooms were also combined until 2019, which covers the range of these sources.
 * Wikilink formatting should be consistent throughout, and that isn't the case here. The style I see most often in this article's citations is that the website/publication/publisher is wikilinked on the first use, and then not wikilinked on subsequent citations. I recommend the following fixes to bring everything in line with this:
 * Ref 10: delink Oregon Department of Transportation
 * Fixed.
 * Ref 19: wikilink KCET
 * Fixed.
 * Federal Highway Administration is currently wikilinked on its third usage and none of the others; the link should be removed from ref 20, and added to ref 12 instead
 * Fixed.
 * Ref 26: wikilink The New York Times
 * Is there any particular reason why a parent publisher is listed on the fourth cited work from the NYT, but on none of the other three?
 * Citation 104 is from UPI, a news agency similar to the AP. The publisher is omitted for newspapers that have a similar name.
 * Ref 37: wikilink Associated Press
 * Fixed.
 * Ref 48: wikilink The Oregonian
 * Fixed.
 * Ref 54: wikilink The Seattle Times
 * Fixed.
 * Ref 77: delink The Sacramento Bee
 * Fixed.
 * Ref 80: delink California Department of Public Works
 * Fixed.
 * Ref 88: delink National Park Service
 * Fixed.
 * Ref 92: wikilink MeasuringWorth (and remove the space between those two words the second time the website is mentioned in the same citation)
 * This citation is handled by a template, where I have requested a change to be made.
 * Ref 126: delink Bureau of Public Roads
 * Fixed.
 * Ref 134: delink San Francisco Examiner
 * Fixed.
 * Copyright: Earwig returned in the single digits, and I could not detect any issues on my own. Copyright review passes .
 * Prose: As I mentioned last week, the article is beautifully written overall. It's comprehensive without veering into unnecessary detail, and the structure and word choices are generally easy to follow. However, there are a few potential kinks that I would like to be ironed out or explained. Prose review on hold : see concerns below.
 * A 16-mile (26 km) section of the existing HOV lanes from Redwood City to San Bruno were converted to high-occupancy toll lanes in 2023 ... → "section ... was"
 * Fixed.
 * ...Astoria, where it meets the western terminus of US 30, which continues into the city. – Could this be clarified? The current wording sounds contradictory, like US 30 is continuing into a city that it's already in to start with.
 * Fixed.
 * The issues I brought up in my preliminary comments last week are still relevant.
 * Miscellaneous: I'm not going to factor these into my review, but I have a couple suggestions on how to improve the article further with sources that are already used in the article. This piece from Oregon Public Broadcasting (currently used as ref 11) mentions that there have been efforts to fix portions of the highway that have fallen into disrepair. Also, this piece published by The Sacramento Bee (currently used as ref 77) in the years after WWI highlights the "military value" of US 101. I think both of these aspects are interesting and could be worth incorporating into the article.
 * Thanks for the review. I have addressed the issues that were raised.  Sounder Bruce  00:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been a pleasure . All fixes and explanations look good to me. (There was a slight misfire wrt the NYT ref link, but as that is minor I have fixed it myself.)  Passed.  Thank you for your cooperation and your excellent work! Dylan 620  (he/him • talk • edits) 17:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Review summary

 * 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 (inline 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Dylan 620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Dylan 620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Dylan 620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)