Talk:U.S. Route 301 in Delaware

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 301 in Delaware/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 15:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Issues fixed. There are issues with the lead. Per WP:USRD/MOS, the first sentence should not mention the entire route, just "U.S. Route 301 (US 301) in the state of Delaware is..." Furthermore, the lead is really long for the size of this article. The article is currently at 16kB "readable prose size". Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the lead in articles 15,000–30,000 characters readable prose size should be 2-3 paragraphs. Since this article is just barely in that bracket, three long paragraphs is excessive. In my opinion, the second and third paragraphs can be reduced to just one paragraph with just the essential information. Most of the rerouting information is not needed and the info about the upgrades can be reduced to 2-3 sentences basically saying "plans have existed for a freeway along this section since the 1950s. Plans were made in 2005 for the freeway, which is currently under design. Construction bids are expected in 2015 with completion of the toll road in 2018." (not the exact proposed wording, but something like that)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See next section about synthesis.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Issues fixed. "The US 301 designation was extended north into Delaware from Maryland in 1959." The reference after this is the 1959-60 state road map. I don't not see anything on that map that says that the US 301 designation was a new addition. The text before this statement uses the 1957-58 state road map as a reference. This is WP:SYNTHESIS. For example, the designation could have been extended in late 1957 or during 1958 after the previous edition was printed. This statement needs a reliable source (and the reference should be closer to this statement).
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The "route description" section, in my opinion, is a bit excessive with descriptions of the scenery the route passes, which are all based on Google Maps. However, after consulting other GA US routes, this seems to be accepted, so I will let this issue pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No stability issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Issues fixed. While images are not required for the GA, the GA criteria state: "if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided." This article almost entirely consists of describing a route, and the lengthy prose really needs an image to aid the reader. Preferably, there should be a map of the route in the article (with towns & intersecting routes...the infobox map isn't very useful in this respect), although I guess the links to Google & Bing Maps at the top and bottom somewhat suffice this. However, an image for the U.S. Route 301 Project is really needed to understand the context of this section. If no free images exist (and since a map could be created, it can't be uploaded as fair use), then this is an appropriate place to use Template:External media with a link to a map of the project. The Mainline Construction Contracts PDF could be used, but since the PDF is large and therefore difficult to browse (especially on mobile devices or slow internet connection) it should only be used as a last resort.
	7. Overall assessment.	All issues have been fixed.Needs changes to lead, synthesis of at least on fact presented in the article, and route map (the Google/Bing Maps links at top/bottom are ok, but at least provide a map for the freeway upgrades).

Suggestions which do not prevent this article's promotion, but would be welcome additions to the article:

• Include a link to U.S. Route 301 in Maryland in the first section of route description.
• "tolls are planned to be $4 for cars and $11 for trucks, with toll rates to rise 3.5 percent annually." Trivial issue, but the source says "about 3.5 percent annually". This seems odd to me...so would car tolls raise to $4.14 the second year? I would think that tolls would increase at an even amount, like $0.25.
• More images would be nice. There's a photo of the Summit Bridge on Commons and the photo of the US301/DE15/DE299 shields, while not of great quality, could be added.

AHeneen (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Replies:

1. The first sentence is to provide context about the entire length of the route while the second sentence describes the portion in Delaware.
2. Cut back some information in lead.
3. Changed to "by 1959" and added reference to previous map. Maps are considered reliable sources.
4. Added picture of Summit Bridge to History section. the pictures of the proposed US 301 freeway are copyrighted and cannot be added to the article. Adding the external media template would be redundant as the map of the proposed freeway is provided in reference 27.
5. Added "about" to sentence about tolls.

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. Dough4872 18:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything looks good except the first sentence of the lead. The first sentence needs to be about the subject of the article: U.S. Route 301 in Delaware, not U.S. Route 301. The hatnote serves the function of directing users to the article for the entire route (see: WP:LEADSENTENCE) and details of the entire route do not need to be included in the lead, especially the first sentence (relation between hatnote and first sentence of the lead is explained here). I've added the external media template to link to a map of the US 301 Project (it's used where an image would be used, so the "Planned upgrade" section, not bottom of the article). It's not redundant to the ref because it serves a different purpose—used in place of media. Plus the image linked in the template is a small image, unlike the large PDF file in reference 27. AHeneen (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed first sentence of lead. Dough4872 00:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Promoted. AHeneen (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)