Talk:Virginia State Route 27/GA2

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

I hope to review the article over the next day or so.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VASCE-History/VASCE-Mixing-Bowl.htm appears to be a WP:SPS.
 * Yes, but this is not a BLP, and we are relying on posted Virginia Dept. of Transportation photos of an interchange, so small chance of fraud or subjectivity. Racepacket (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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, 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:
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:

Detailed review

 * General
 * Please run the disambiguation links tool above; you have 3 of them.
 * Source 13 - how do you know that that's VA 27? - it is an ariel photograph which is consistent with all other maps and photographs.


 * Lead
 * Way too short. Please see WP:LEAD. - supposed to be 1 or 2 paragraphs for a 13,000 byte article.


 * Route description
 * The route description organization is still flawed. There's one superlong paragraph describing the entire route. Generally in Wikipedia prose you don't want that sort of thing. The paragraphs need to be broken up. - done
 * How are you sourcing the "Mixing Bowl"? -done
 * "Route 27 then turns to a southwest-to-northeast orientation" - hard to imagine. Maybe indicate that it turns instead? - turn in inperceptible as a part of an interchange
 * Source 2 is cited several times for continguous sentences. Unless you add more sources in between go ahead and cut the extra citations out (though they still are needed for each paragraph at a minimum). - don't want to create impression that it is uncited.
 * Lots of "has interchanges" - please use variety. - phrase occurs once
 * Link Fort Myer. - done
 * "The first interchange with Route 244 offers a very short merge area because of the proximity to the exit ramps to I-395 and Arlington Ridge Road." - probably true, but Wikipedia isn't the place to comment on that. WP:OR. - sourced
 * Back to the Mixing Bowl again?! - it is the main reference point of the route description and is about 20% of the length of this route
 * And now we're off to 1970. That sentence belongs in the history. - sentence is clarification as to why Mixing Bowl is notable has having a 3-level bridge.
 * There's 2 interchanges with Route 244? This could be made more clear, rather than going right into "The first interchange..."
 * "Also at the second Route 244 interchange," is a bad grammatical construction nonetheless. -done
 * "Route 27 is the northern terminus of the reversible high occupancy vehicle lanes of I-395." - but this is the VA 27 article, does this need to be here? - because the traffic flows betweem the reversible lanes and Route 27 without ever entering the normal lanes of I-395.
 * "The westbound entrance to these lanes have a series of manually closed barriers to prevent an accidental oncoming collision during the hours each day when traffic flows to the east on the HOV lanes." - again probably true, but you can't source that. Not relevant anyway.
 * "involves" - too colloquial, choose a different word. Also, listing the three roads like that makes it hard to follow. - changed to accesses


 * The second paragraph should go at the beginning of the route description, or you could even fit it into the lead. - I moved it out of the lead, because items in the lead are required to also be discussed in the main sections of the article.
 * The third paragraph shouldn't be there. You should mention the sites at the places the route passes by them. - I tried that but it was impossible to follow because the points of interest are so intertwined with the various ramps of the interchanges. This is a 2 mile long route along some of the nation's most notable structures.


 * In summary, the RD is not very well written. I can't tell if the prose describes the route in any sort of order or if it jumps around randomly along the route.- it is in west to east order
 * The RD also goes dangerously close to what a lot of USRD RD's are like: Route X interchanges with Route Y and crosses over the Z River. Then, it intersects County Route 232 and goes through an interchange with Route D before crossing into farmland. After interchanging with Route 2, Route X interchanges with Route S before entering A County. (A route description should answer the question, why does the reader care about the road? It shouldn't be a mindless recitation of interchanges and county lines and zoning. Sure, that may be okay for a Start-Class article, but for the GA stage, it's gotta be more interesting than that).


 * History
 * What was the Pentagon Road network? - described in the separate article
 * It's just tacky to quote in the second sentence, when it's pretty easy to paraphrase it yourself. - I can't paraphrase it any better and don't want to be guilty of a close paraphrase.
 * We go from road to roads suddenly... what happened? Do you mean the roads in the system? - all of the roads in the Pentagon Road network including Rt. 27 and Rt. 110.
 * "the Mixing Bowl was reconfigured so that the Route 27 lanes were separated as collector lanes from the through lanes of I-395.[2] Because the collector lanes were built on the site of the ramp from westbound Shirley Highway to the eastbound Route 27, the ramp was replaced with a ramp from the eastbound Route 27 into the Pentagon South Parking Lot.[2]" - Those are cited off source 2... which is a map from the present day. To make claims like that you usually need to cite 2 maps from before and after, so you can show a change. - also cite to Road To The Future
 * "proximate"? - Route 27 is the closest street or road to the point of impact and the plane barely cleared Route 27 as it crashed into the side of the building that faces Route 27.
 * "has been rated as "poor"" - how? In structural integrity? In aesthetics? - state engineers grade each bridge on structural integrity
 * "Construction is expected in 2012 and completed in 2015, if funds are available." - bad construction


 * Junction list
 * Junction list - notes - only the first letter in each sentence and the street names should be capitalized, plus Route. Nothing else. St. should be spelled out.
 * Arlington County is an independent city... but this isn't really clear in the hatnote. Not sure what the solution is here, though. - Arlington is not a city, it is a county without any cities in it. -checked


 * Images
 * Not a WP:GA requirement per se, but please include WP:ALT text for your images.


 * Overall recommendation

I'm failing this article. It's clear that (while the first reviewer could have provided more details, granted) there was a quite rushed attempt to fix only some of the things addressed at the last review before a quick renomination. GA shouldn't be about getting the green circle with a plus in it; it should be about writing articles that match the GA standard. I could "hold" the article, but it's clear that there's quite a bit of work that needs to be done here. Please, take your time and fix what has been outlined before a renomination, or you'll go through this cycle again. - if you compare with prior version you can see how much the article has improved.
 * That may be so. But it's not improved to the point of where it can be considered for GA status. I'm not going to respond to your comments above, as it's clear that you want to do things your own way, regardless of what anyone else says. The problem with this is "your way" is not the way that works well with Wikipedia standards. Your rush to quickly renominate the article is disconcerting as well. If you think this review is flawed, you're always welcome to go to WP:GAR. However, your renominating the article within 12 hours of its failure is just another recipe for another failure at GAN. --Rschen7754 20:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rschen7754 03:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)