Talk:U.S. Route 290/GA1

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 23:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Will review later this week.  Sounder Bruce  23:55, 1 April 2020 (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):
 * Many paragraphs are missing citations. Very few secondary sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Missing a lot of information beyond legislative changes, for example construction impacts for the freeway sections.
 * 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):
 * The left-adjusted shields should be combined and properly captioned.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The left-adjusted shields should be combined and properly captioned.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Infobox and lead

 * The use of "at" in the junctions list is rather unnatural, and "southeast of Segovia" is not in line with USRD standards.
 * The browse order should have SH 290 after US 290, not before.
 * "current" is unnecessary
 * Three consecutive sentences that begin with "it"; add more variety
 * The history paragraph needs to have years or decades to not confuse readers
 * The US 90 factoid does not belong in the lead

Route description

 * Every paragraph needs an appropriate map source, and every claim that cannot be verified by the map should have a separate reliable source. A few examples of claims that need other citations (preferably from secondary sources):
 * "important artery for Fredericksburg's agricultural district" – something that should be worded more neutrally
 * "several wineries"
 * "additional hilly terrain"
 * Manor Expressway and toll information
 * Hurricane evacuation information
 * Exit numbers for other highways are not necessary
 * "amidst additional farmland" is unnatural
 * Most uses of "additional" in the section are unnecessary
 * Explaining how the Johnson NHP is split would be helpful before using terms like ranch/city area/unit
 * Designated as Main Street → US 290 is signed as Main Street or US 290 travels on Main Street
 * Do we really need to use sigmoid curve? There are alternatives for laymen that sound more natural.

History

 * "The department's" – Which department?
 * Exact dates are overkill in the first section, and frankly make it hard to read
 * "vest the department" – vested or granted (in more natural language)
 * Citation overkill in the last paragraph of the "Other" section

Future

 * Any updates since 2011? It belongs in another section if it was a one-time proposal
 * Surely more information can be added for the remaining proposals

Final comments
I'm afraid I will have to fail this GAN. It would need a lot of work to reach basic GA standards and I suggest you look for someone within USRD to advise you about writing road content in a more natural way.  Sounder Bruce  06:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)