Talk:Arizona State Route 67/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Imzadi 1979 → 00:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

DABs are good. There's an error with one of the external links [1] which is probably just a server maintenance issue.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I don't like checking those two like that, as the article is quite well written, but there are a few minor issues that need to be addressed, and the lead needs expansion.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Just need to clarify the NSB and NFSB designations in the history as discussed below. Also, the road closes in the winter, which isn't mentioned in the article at all. [2][3]

   I have mentioned it being closed in the winter but I don't think it is in the correct location. Should it be moved to the first paragraph of the route description or perhaps even the junction list? --PCB 22:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   See below

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Really, everything I'm commenting on is minor stuff that's easily resolved. I have no reason to think it can't be resolved in the normal hold period. Imzadi 1979 → 20:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for the review (and many helpful tips that were presented.) I believe all issues have been fixed. --PCB 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead/infobox comments

1. Right off the bat, I'm going to profess some confusion. The infobox says: "Maintained by ADOT" but the RD says: "The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) does not officially own this section of road, but it is signed as SR 67.^[1]" These two statements conflict a bit without further clarification. You probably should find out who owns and maintains the section of the roadway inside the park, and then include that information in the article. Footnote 15 tells me that the road in the park is owned by the National Park Service. If so, then I'd change the infobox to |maint=[[Arizona Department of Transportation|ADOT]] and [[National Park Service|NPS]]. Then you'll need to update the junction list to reflect the intra-park section.

   It looks like this points out that the NPS does indeed maintain SR 67, which I did not previously note.--PCB 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Once you get the length of the intra-park section, you'll need to update the infobox's length to the total, ADOT length + intra-park length.

   I can't find the length in the NP documented anywhere, so I'll have to use Bing Maps or something. In that case, should Bing maps be added to the |length_ref= parameter? --PCB 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

3. "Kaibab Plateau–North Rim Parkway" should have spaces on either side of the en dash. The space before the dash should be a  . This should be fixed wherever the name appears in the article, not just the infobox.
4. The lead seems a little short. You have two good-sized paragraphs in the RD, yet very little summary of them in the lead. In contrast, the history is well summarized in the lead. The NSB and NFSB designations aren't even mentioned in the lead outside of the NSB name.

   Lead expanded but NSB and NFSB not mentioned yet. --PCB 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Route description comments

1. You'll need to clarify the jurisdiction/ownership/maintenance issues in the RD as explained above.
2. Wikilink Kaibab National Forest.

    Done. --PCB 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

3. Consider wikilinking "National Forest road" to Forest Highway.

    Done. --PCB 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

4. You need a citation for "Even though it is a scenic route recognized by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)". I would reword this part of the sentence. The "even though" implies that scenic routes are supposed to be on the NHS, but I don't think that's the case. Is it? I would split that into its own sentence and avoid the comparison between a FHWA scenic route and NHS status. Something like (using dummy footnotes):

   The highway is a National Scenic Byway recognized by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and it has also been listed as a National Forest Scenic Byway by the National Forest Service.^[1] No part of the highway has been listed in the National Highway System,^[2] a system of roads in the United States important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility.^[3]

   If needed, clarify what sections of SR 67 have received these designations if it isn't the whole roadway. (Footnote 15 I think discusses the byway endpoints.

    Done. --PCB 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

5. If anything in the end, the first paragraph of the RD though is a little too much turn-by-turn. Some of the directional changes could be removed to simplify the prose.

   I realized this and have removed some of the clearing-by-clearing, turn-by-turn road. I was about to do this for the whole RD until I realized that the road was very windy :p --PCB 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

History comments

1. According to the entry on the National Scenic Byways, this road was added to the system on June 9, 1998. It has also been designated a National Forest Scenic Byway on June 5, 1989. Both are according to:

   "Kaibab Plateau – North Rim Parkway: Official Designations". America's Byways. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 15, 2011.

   {{cite web |url=http://www.byways.org/explore/byways/10465/designation.html |title= Kaibab Plateau – North Rim Parkway: Official Designations |publisher= Federal Highway Administration |work=America's Byways |accessdate=March 15, 2011}}

   As a National Forest Scenic Byway? I am somewhat confused as to what designations exist. --PCB 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

   That source page spells out what designations and when they've been applied to the road. (All NSBs have a similar page on that website.) You'll need to insert this information though. The one sentence fragment "and is recognized by the FHWA" is wrong and should be expanded out into a full sentence as to what and when this recognition was made. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Junction list comments

1. Above I mentioned that you should add the intra-park section of the highway to the table. Once you find a source for the length, I would add the southern terminus of what is signed as SR 67 inside the park as the first line. The second line would be the park entrance, and you'll probably end up with two milepost numbers in that row like you had on Interstate 270 (Colorado).
2. Double check the termini of the byway/parkway designations. If they don't align with entries in the junction list, I would add that location. (On the M-35 or US 41 articles, a random Delta County Road is listed because it is the endpoint of a memorial highway designation.

Reference comments

1. Five of the footnotes are formatted with ISO-style dates. They should be switched to match the format of the rest.
2. Footnote 1 should have page number(s) added for the page(s) being cited for this article. I would also add the "generation date" from the report (if you're using pages 143–4 for the material) to the citation as the publication date. The author for this report should be the "Multimodal Planning Division" and the publisher should be ADOT.
3. Footnote 3's author is Robin N. Clayton. Arizona Scenic Roads is the work, and the Arizona Office of Tourism would be the publisher. (The tourism office is linked from the bottom of the site.)
4. Footnote 7 should have the "Multimodal Planning Division" as the author like footnote 1.
5. Footnote 8 should list page 18. As a work of corporate authorship, ADOT should also be listed as the publisher. It should still be listed as the author, unless you can find what bureau or office in the department created the document.
6. Footnote 9 doesn't support anything in this article, and it should be removed.
7. Footnote 10 should have its date (September 2009) added. You could add "Multimodal Planning Division" as the cartographer if desired.
8. If you're looking for a citation to support the explanation of what the NHS is, I use {{cite web |url=http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/ |title= The National Highway System |publisher=Federal Highway Administration |date= August 26, 2010 |accessdate= January 1, 2011}} since that's the source of the information.
9. Footnote 13 (1938 map) was published by Sinclair. Rand McNally is the cartographer for it though. It has section numbers, which should be added to the format of the citation.
10. Footnotes 14, 15, 16 and 17 should have their dates added. (They are February 25, 1941, September 20, 1985, April 17, 1987, and March 17, 1989, respectively.) Footnote 15 should have Charles L. Miller's name added as the author. All of them should have ADOT as the publisher. (Yes, that's redundant when its the author, but that's allowed and even expected with corporate authors.)

    I think all of these have been fixed. --PCB 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Image comments

1. The map is good, but it needs a caption using |map_notes= to provide perspective on what the map is showing.

   The caption needs to be rewritten... Something like "A map of northern Arizona showing SR 67 highlighted in red" is more appropriate since your caption adds no perspective at all. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

   Fixed caption. --PCB 22:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

2. I've pinged the map creator to get GIS source information added to the file description page on the map. That's something that reviewers at FAC (and ACR) may comment on that we as a project should be working on resolving earlier in the assessment and improvement process.
3. There are photos that came up in a quick image search on images.google.com for "Kaibab Plateau–North Rim Parkway". I used the advanced search option to select "labeled for commercial used with modification" which means they can be uploaded to Commons and used on Wikipedia. This one or this one would be good candidates to add. I can help you transfer several of them, and we can build a {{commons category}} for them that would be linked from the bottom of the article in addition to any you add to the article itself. (Brockway Mountain Drive has more photos than what are in the article, and they're linked from the bottom using that template, giving readers more images to view if desired.)

   I added the rest of the good photos from that Flickr album to Commons and placed the template in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks a lot for the tip on getting images. --PCB 22:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

4. Some of the photos on the National Scenic Byways site are public domain, like this one.

   I also added the good scenic panorama of the Grand Canyon to the article, since after all, most of the users of this highway are going for that attraction. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing review

Everything that needed to be addressed has been done. The article is now ready to be listed. Imzadi 1979 → 04:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)