Talk:Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Examples include "large interchange with PA 291", what type of interchange is it? This lack of interchange information is prevalent throughout the article.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Introduction is too short, see WP:LEAD for more info.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   I was greeted with the dreaded "citation needed" template in the introduction, not a good sign. The introduction should not include any information that is not featured in the main body, and certainly should not include any uncited information. There are other instances of uncited information within the main body as well, examples include "This current bridge structure, while structurally sufficient, is functionally obsolete, and it requires major expansion or replacement." and the entire "future" section.

   C. No original research:

   Uncited statements may contain original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would bring this to WT:USRD and WT:PASH to see if someone is interested in fixing this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

They have been notified, I will also notify major contributors. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made changes to the article as requested. Dough4872 (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Article has been improved and kept as a Good Article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 14:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)