Talk:Delaware Route 3/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 22:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

DABs and ELs check out.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   See below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Looks good.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Looks good.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Looks good.

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):

   Looks good.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Some comments are in order before passing. Imzadi 1979 → 01:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead comments

• This section looks good and satisfies the requirements of a lead section.

Route description comments

• The writing and content here is acceptable.

History comments

• I understand the need for precision, and since you apparently don't have annual editions of the state maps available, you've had to resort to the "by 1924" wording. Since every single year in the section is that way, you really need some variety in wording because its really getting monotonous.
  • Changed a few instances. Dough4872 02:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Major intersections comments

• Exit numbers in the notes for the intersecting freeways would be a nice touch, but otherwise the section is satisfactory.
  • Added exit numbers. Dough4872 02:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

References comments

• Footnote 1 needs complete attribution information including an access date.
  • Fixed reference. Dough4872 02:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• The maps should state their publication years, even if that duplicates the edition. Some states publish multiyear editions, and some editions might be attributable to a specific publication date listed on the map. In short, the edition isn't a substitute for the publication year.
  • Added publication years to map template. Dough4872 02:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Maps are missing section numbers. They should be added if the map has grid sections. If the maps lack them, of course, they can't be added.
  • Added section numbers where available. Dough4872 02:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Overall comments

• Given how easy it is to add a KML, I'd personally prefer that you add one.
  • Added a KML. Dough4872 02:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, so I'll list the article. Imzadi 1979 → 02:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)