Talk:Colorado State Highway 112

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Colorado State Highway 112 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.
May 14, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject U.S. Roads (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
U.S. Roads WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article has a map. If the map has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.
This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.
WikiProject United States / Colorado (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado (marked as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Colorado State Highway 112/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dough4872 02:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The route description contains overuse of "continues" and "then". Try to cut down on the use of these words. The sentence "In 1916, there existed a 12-mile gravel road that was numbered as 10-S from Center to Hooper." sounds awkward and needs to be reworded. "By 1930, SH 112 had been paved from Del Norte to the county line.", what county line are you referring to?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The route description should include more detail on the physical surroundings the route passes through. It should not by a dry recital of a map. In addition, did anything happen to the route since 1947 in the history? Can you elaborate on and possibly reword the sentence "The road continued to be realigned for the next eighty years".
  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):
    An image of the road would be nice, but not required.
  7. Overall:
I am putting the article on hold to allow for fixes. Dough4872 02:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Dough, thank you for the review. I believe I have fixed all the issues mentioned (except for the images). Any more specifics? --PCB 04:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
After a minor fix, the article is now ready to pass. Dough4872 14:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I made a few recent edits concerning the references and lengths in the article. If the junction list gives the length to 3 decimal places, then the infobox and other usages should as well. There's no need to round some of the figures, but not all of them.

As for the references, I converted the map references to use {{cite map}} or {{bing maps}} instead of {{cite web}}. I added the |format=PDF as needed. I found dates for the references that were missing, and harmonized all of the dates to the same format. I assume that the National Geographic map is on paper and not online, so an |accessdate= parameter should not be used. Additionally, per the guidlines on overlinking, only one link, on first usage is needed to the Colorado Department of Transportation article. I removed the extras, and put the link on the first usage, and fixed all of the publisher references that weren't correct.

These are all issues that both the nominator and the reviewer should have caught and fixed when this was at GAN. Please keep this in mind for future, similar, nominations. Imzadi 1979  02:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Some additional edits I just made:
  1. Three consecutive sentences don't need three consecutive footnotes for the same reference. The extras were removed.
  2. County lines should be indicated with an en dash, not a slash. Since Rio Grande County has a space in it, the "Rio Grande — Sagauche county line" should have a spaced en dash, per the MOS.
  3. The common abbreviations should be introduced on first mention. In the case of the subject, the abbreviation is rendered in boldface inside parentheses. Others should be used on first usage, and the abbreviation used consistently afterwards. Previously, the only places that used the abbreviations were the infobox and junction list when the prose should have included them as well.
One suggestion: given the length of the article, the place names and highway names may not need to be linked in all three prose sections: lead, RD and history. Many highway articles do relink from section to section, but they are usually much longer in terms of text. My last suggestion is more of something optional, but many highway articles use the $2/code> and |counties= infobox parameters. If the maintenance is added to the infobox, then somewhere in the article a mention of CDOT should be used, complete with the CDOT abbreviation in parentheses. Imzadi 1979  03:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --PCB 06:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)