Wikipedia:Peer review/Ohio State Route 612/archive1

Ohio State Route 612
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this page to at least B-status, higher if possible (it's currently at C-status), and would like some advice as to how I can reach that status.

Thanks, Pyrotle …  the "y" is silent, BTW.  22:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Review—if you'd like to make this B-Class, you'll need to do the following at a minimum:
 * 1) The lead needs to be expanded. It's not a sufficient summary of the contents of the article. I'd suggest a full paragraph at least double the current length.
 * 2) The route description is currently fine, but if it can be expanded some more, that would be better
 * 3) The history needs work.
 * 4) A 1937 map can't verify a 1937 creation date on its own. Do you have a 1936 map that shows that the highway did not yet exist when the map was created? If so, then you can narrow down the creation to being between the publication dates of the 1936 and 1937 maps. In short, such research requires two maps for the before and after conditions of a change.
 * 5) The extension stated to occur in 1939 needs a second map for verification. Again, this research technique requires the before and the after conditions of the roadway.
 * 6) Broken record time: if it was decommissioned in 1951, I need to see a 1952 map showing the number removed.
 * 7) Any idea when the highway was fully paved for the first time? If the maps indicate gravel/dirt vs. paved status, this is a useful detail to add. It's also interesting to note the location of the last section to be paved, not just the year it was done. Just remember to cite the maps before and after the change, and write the text to indicate that the change happened between the dates. If there aren't maps published every year, you'll need to indicate a range of dates, not a single year.
 * 8) The junction list looks fine, but you should repeat the footnotes for the 1939 extension there as well.
 * 9) References are one of my specialties.
 * 10) Please spell out the publisher. "ODOH" is meaningless in this situation.
 * 11) For all of these maps, if they have grid references that would enable you to specify which section or sections of the map apply, then you should add section to cite map. Just as you shouldn't force a reader to search an entire book for a single page, you shouldn't force that same reader to search an entire map when a grid reference can be supplied. Obviously, if the map doesn't have a grid, you can't invent one.
 * 12) Maps' scales, when known, should also be supplied. If the scale isn't known, Scale not given can be added in its place.
 * 13) Are you sure about the cartography information? If it's correct, drop the ", Director", but I'm doubtful that the actual director of the Ohio Department of Highways drew those maps himself. Rather, I suspect that a specific office within the department drew them. If the maps don't indicate this office, or then ODOH is fine to indicate that the department drew the maps. (Yes, it's fine to abbreviate the department in this case, because it's being repeated in the same citation, but it shouldn't be abbreviated in its only mention in the citation.)

The short version: you have a C-Class article under WP:USRD/A because it has all of the "Big Three": the route description, a history and a junction or exit list. To be bumped to B-Class, the project will require the RD to be an appropriate length of text for the length of the highway and its general environment, that the history be fully cited with appropriate citations, and that the junction list should have all of its mileposts. Additionally, the lead should be an appropriate length and all of the citations expected should be in place. If you can do these things, the article should be ready to be polished the last little bit to be listed as a Good Article. (In this case, polish usually means just a quick touch up to any rough prose, double checking that captions for photos and other things are formatted correctly, etc.) GAs are better with photos, but they are not required.

You should also add a "See also" section with * and *. Our USRD portal is featured, and it should be linked from every appropriate article to help drive some page views. If there are any webpages with additional information, say any of the various roadgeek webpages, then you should include them in an "External links" section, and shift the KML box there as well because it links to other websites.

I hope that this helps,  Imzadi 1979  →   03:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)