Talk:U.S. Route 290/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:U.S. Route 290/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 290/GA1. 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. SounderBruce 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.
2. :a (prose, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|n}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|n}}
3. ::
4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
5. :a (reference section): {{GAList/check|y}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|n}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|y}} d (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|y}}
6. :: Many paragraphs are missing citations. Very few secondary sources.
7. It is broad in its coverage.
8. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|?}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|?}}
9. :: Missing a lot of information beyond legislative changes, for example construction impacts for the freeway sections.
10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
11. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
12. ::
13. It is stable.
14. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}
15. ::
16. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
17. :a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|y}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|?}}
18. :: The left-adjusted shields should be combined and properly captioned.
19. Overall:
20. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|n}}
21. ::

• 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

• 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.

• "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

• 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

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. SounderBruce 06:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)