Talk:U.S. Route 30 in Iowa/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Dough 48  72  16:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Try to avoid using "US 30" in every sentence of the route description. In addition, the route description seems a little dry. Throughout the article, I noticed some mini-infoboxes for auxiliary routes of US 30, with two placed in the route description where that route forks from US 30 and three placed in the history. For better organization, is it possible to create an auxiliary routes section for the article to list these five auxiliary routes.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are a few unreferenced sentences and paragraphs in the route description, a simple citation to a map would do here. In addition, there is some context in the route description, specifically about the physical terrain the route passes through, that is not supported by the IADOT traffic book. In addition, the traffic book is the only reference in the route description, at least one more reference is needed.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Some more descriptive information about the route should be added to the lead, such as a few of the cities it serves and major intersections.
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I will place the article on hold to allow for fixes.  Dough 48  72  16:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed your concerns. I don't think putting major intersections in the lead is necessary; it certainly wasn't for other similar good articles.  If I've missed anything, give me specifics and I'll address them again.  Thanks. &mdash;Fredddie™ 23:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will now pass the article.  Dough 48  72  23:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will place the article on hold to allow for fixes.  Dough 48  72  16:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed your concerns. I don't think putting major intersections in the lead is necessary; it certainly wasn't for other similar good articles.  If I've missed anything, give me specifics and I'll address them again.  Thanks. &mdash;Fredddie™ 23:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will now pass the article.  Dough 48  72  23:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)