Talk:Texas Recreational Road 255/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: TheCatalyst31 (talk · contribs) 10:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The article is mostly there, but there are still some criteria that haven't been met.

Well-written:

The route description needs more variety in sentence structure. Nearly every sentence starts with "the highway", "the route", or "the roadway".
I'm seeing significant overuse of commas in the article; for instance, the sentence "The highway slowly bends eastward again, intersecting a few small roads in the process, and continuing through more rural area.", which does not need the second comma. There are many more problematic sentences like this one, and I can't list them all here, but they all need to be fixed.
The lead should be longer; it's currently only one paragraph, which is somewhat short for an article of this length, and it's missing some important details (for instance, it doesn't say anything about RE 255 being the first recreational road).
Decades shouldn't contain apostrophies per WP:DECADE.
The abbreviations for U.S. Routes are inconsistent; U.S. Route 69 is mentioned first with no abbreviation, then US 96 is abbreviated, then U.S. Route 69 is spelled out again later on. They should be abbreviated in the same manner as the other types of roads mentioned in the article.
The second sentence of the introduction is poorly written; the eastern terminus should probably be mentioned before the intersections, the counties don't need to be mentioned since they were listed in the previous sentence, and "in southeastern Texas" belongs in the first sentence to describe the counties.
The history section needs to state more explicitly that RE 255 was originally designated as a farm-to-market road.
If "FM 2628 and FM 3125 were combined on February 15, 1970" means that they were made a part of RE 255, the article should say that explicitly; as it is, it's confusing.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

On at least two occasions, the route description mentions that the route passes through "a small, unnamed community". The TxDOT maps used to reference the route description don't show any communities at these locations, and since not every group of houses on a satellite image is a community, this is original research unless specifically cited.
The mileage should not be stated as approximate, since TxDOT does not call it approximate in the reference.
In the "Traffic" section, what constitutes a "substantial" increase in vehicles is subjective, and personally I wouldn't say an increase of 600 or 40 vehicles is substantial in this context.
The last sentence of the history section should also cite the designation file for UR 255, which states that the second FM/UR 255 became part of SR 255 (whereas the designation file for FM 255 doesn't).
For reference 14, the latest update was after the date in the reference but before the access date.
I'm not sure if Google Maps is a reliable source for stating that RE 255 Spur is now part of CR 32, as the other highway which Google calls CR 32 is marked as CR 1002 in the TxDOT map book (and from my experience, Google is prone to these kinds of mistakes). This should be cited with a more reliable map if it's to be included.
See my comment on the talk page about the route of RE 255 Spur.

Broad:

The route description goes into too much detail for a highway this long; an article on a 56-mile highway doesn't need to mention every little bend in the road, every group of local roads, or every time it passes a few buildings. The description should stick to more general descriptions of the road's direction and environment and only mention the significant crossroads and landmarks it passes.
It would be nice to have some background as to why TxDOT began the recreational road system, though it's not absolutely necessary.

Other things:

A map or a KML file would be nice, though neither is required. The KML file should be doable, though; if the nominator can't make one, I'd be willing to do it.

I am unable to make a KML file for this route. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 21:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll make it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of these issues should be fixable, so I am putting the article on hold for 7 days for the nominator to address them. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 10:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been two weeks and the nominator has not improved the article, I am failing the article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]