Talk:Interstate 85 in North Carolina/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: NoobThreePointOh (talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Keresluna (talk · contribs) 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will try and add any comments that I have if possible. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoobThreePointOh: Unfortunately, if 2c isn't fixed shortly (like in two days), I am going to have to fail this nomination per WP:GAFAIL. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 23:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keresluna Hmmm, I'm looking at 2c, and I'm wondering which sections are uncited. Can you tell me which sections need to be improved? Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the whole subsection 'Durham to Virginia' and 'Related routes' are unreferenced. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 23:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's not a lot of info on I-85 from Durham to Virginia (very little sources online). I can definitely fix the "Related routes" section, and probably fix the "Durham to Virginia" section as well. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keresluna

Done. I've added sources in the "Related routes" section. I will try and find some for the "Durham to Virginia" section. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keresluna Alright. I hunted around the web for any reliable sources, and found a lot to help finish the "Durham to Virginia" section by citing the unsourced claims.

Done. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more sections which are unrefernced:

2nd paragraph of the section South Carolina to Charlotte
Last sentence of the first paragraph of Charlotte to Greensboro.
Last sentence of Durham to Virginia.

Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Massive amounts of uncited text. Whole subsections and sections are uncited.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Okay.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Looks fine.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Probably fail if 2c isn't fixed shortly.