Talk:Interstate 495 (Delaware)
 | Interstate 495 (Delaware) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 24, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 495 (Delaware)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Yoshi24517 (talk · contribs) 22:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Upon quick reading of this article, it appears that there are no problems with this article. As a user who has significally contributed to the article, I find it very helpful. Anybody who wanted to learn about Interstate 495 in Delaware could read this and learn a lot about this article. As someone who is new to rewiewing articles, I will just go step by step.
1. The article is well written. It does look like it is very well written. I mean that it is very detailed. It is also very cleae and concise. Again, anybody who wanted to learn more about Interstate 495 in Delaware could read and learn a ton of stuff about it in this article.
2. The article in verifiable, with no original research. Everything looks like it is verifiable. I need to get another person's opinion on this though. So just wait and we will get back to you on that. However, I did notice the reference #30, is currently dead. You might want to fix that.
- I have removed the dead reference, the information is cited in the following reference. Dough4872 01:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Dough4872: Great job! I see no reason why we shouldn't promote this. Yoshi24517Chat Absent 16:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
3. The article is broad in its coverage. It covers all the main aspects of the idea, talking about its history, and how it talks about the tilting support beams. The article section "History" stays on topic. This article does not ramble on and on. The sentences are short and sweet.
4. The article is fairly neutral, without any bias. The article does remain fairly neutral. I do not see any bias in this article. It looks like as there is no opinion, and that they are all facts.This looks good for the GA promotion.
5. The article is stable. There are no ongoing edit wars or content disputes or anything of the such like that. The number of words doe not change tothe same numbers every single day due to these.
6. The article are illustrated by images. There are pictures in this article. They are very detailed and they are copoyrighted any not copied from sombody else.
Overall: I say this article should pass and get promoted to GA status. Additional comments are very welcome. Yoshi24517Chat Absent 22:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Redesignation of I-95 and I-495 in late 1970s edit
The article mentions current I-495 being designated as I-95, and current I-95 being designated as I-895, from 1978 to 1980. Maybe this is a language thing ("designated" versus "signed" being different), but I only remember these being signed as such for a much shorter time (for most of 1980, although I don't remember exact dates). To find exact dates (needed documentation), one might look in the Wilmington News Journal around that time, or maybe in DOT documents (although I have no idea where to start with that). 57.140.28.4 (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)