Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Ohio State Route 161

Ohio State Route 161 edit

The article was not promoted. T C N7JM 21:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Here's the peer review, that no one responded to.

Nominated by: —CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 23:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First comment occurred: 23:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie edit

OK, will begin reviewing right away. –Fredddie ™ 23:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, welcome to ACR, CycloneIsaac! Normally, I go line-by-line and review thoroughly, but there are a number of things that need to be addressed before we can consider doing that.

The lead is far too short. Ideally, it should be at least a full paragraph longer than what you are presenting. However, there are no hard and fast rules for writing a lead so others may disagree with me.
The route description is, to be blunt, not very good.
1. It's too short. Again, another paragraph that same size would be nice.
2. It needs to be reorganized. If I were to rewrite this, the first paragraph would be from the west end to I-270. The second would describe between the two I-270 junctions; the third east of I-270. Each paragraph should be about the same length.
3. Word repetition is pretty bad.
  Interchange 13 times
  
  Intersection appears 9 times
  
  Concurrency 6 times
  
  Freeway 4 times
  - I am not saying you should never use these words, but they should not be used in consecutive sentences; especially not FIVE sentences in a row as is the case with interchange(s).
It does not appear that there was much research put into the history of SR 161.
1. With just a little bit of digging, you should be able to find the exact day SR 161 was designated. A trip to the DOT library in Columbus would be a great place to start. I'm not saying they will, but they should have a dedicated file for every route.
2. There is a significant lack of sources that are not the DOT or DOT-related. Maps are generally fine to use, but at ACR we really need to demonstrate notability. It is almost impossible to do that with maps alone. It's time to go to the library and look through old newspapers. Any library worth its salt will have made an attempt to make their microfiche archive searchable.

The junction list is a bright spot, but I helped out with that part in earlier stages of the article's progression.

With all this, I have to oppose this article attaining A-Class as-is. Please don't be discouraged. This is a stepping stone to improving your writing and researching skills. I am confident that all of the people who will comment after me would give you some tips. –Fredddie ™ 00:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Rschen7754 edit

I will review this article. --Rs chen 7754 02:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I will have to Oppose this as well. The main issue is that this fails the FAC criteria for "comprehensive", as not all of the information that can be reliably sourced has been found and included in the article (see WP:WIAFA). Notably the history is only sourced to maps; it provides no information on why the road was built.

I have to concur with the comments about the lead, and there is no map. The route description needs work as well. Again, as mentioned above, don't be discouraged, as GA in itself is an accomplishment; I would work on getting more practice with GA before working towards ACR. --Rs chen 7754 08:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dough4872 edit

A map of the route should be added to the article.
The lead of the article is awfully short.
The route description is very dry. More detail could be added pertaining to physical surroundings and attractions so it doesn't read as simply a listing of intersections and towns.
The prose has several awkwardly-worded sentences such as "SR 161 starts off in Mutual as Milford Road, at a T-intersection at SR 29", "There would be no more major intersections until SR 161 has reached Plain City, as it meets U.S. Route 42 (US 42).", and "The next two interchanges, Hamilton Road and New Albany Road, uses diamond interchanges."
I am sure there is more detail that can be added to the history about the construction of the SR 161 freeway. When was ground broken for the freeway? How much did it cost? Was there any opposition or controversy? A little hard research may need to be done here.

As such, this article has several issues before it can seriously be considered for A-class. Therefore, I will have to oppose. I would suggest doing some more research, do some copyediting, and expand the article as suggested before renominating it here again. Dough 48 72 19:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.