Talk:A82 road/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 19:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Dab and external links check out with the toolbox items.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   No copyediting has been done to the article since the FAC. At that time, I would not have judge the prose to be at GA-level based on the comments of the other reviewers. This must be addressed before the article can pass at this stage. Additionally, there were concerns that the lead does not properly summarize the body of the article and that content in the lead is not repeated elsewhere.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sourcing looks good, however the article still needs some work to satisfy formatting concerns from the FAC regarding overlinking and presentation in the footnotes. Such work does not impact GA status, but it would give the article a touch of needed polish.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As the FAC stated, the article lacks a junction list, which I'd consider to be a "major aspect" of the content for a roadway. Additionally, as the FAC stated, the entire Gaelic signs section is tangential to this article, which means there's a lack of focus on the proper content in this article.

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Please audit captions for correct formatting. Only captions that are complete sentences should have terminal punctuation. I see some sentences that lack punctuation, and some captions that include it that should not. Also, the caption for the map in the infobox should make a note of the meaning behind the green and red lines.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, I can't pass this article for this level of assessment. I could have placed it on hold, but I feel there's too much work to be completed in terms of re-focusing the article and copy editing the prose. Good Article is not a "consolation prize" for an article that couldn't pass FAC; it is a less-strenuous, but still serious, assessment level on its own. Until the deficiencies are addressed, this article does not warrant that assessment, in my opinion. Imzadi 1979 → 19:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional footnote formatting issues In addition to the items mentioned in the FAC earlier this year, the following additional items should be fixed, even if they don't officially impact GA status:

• Footnotes 42–44 are reports. They should be rendered using {{cite report}}, and they should contain the name of the commission that wrote them.
• Footnote 47 is a map lacking its publisher, yet implies one with its title. Even if its redundant, the publisher should be explicitly stated. Ideally, all maps should list a cartographer, either a specific person or the corporate entity that provided the cartography, even if redundant to the publisher.
• There are still issues of consistency with works vs. publishers and italics vs. roman text. This should be addressed because it's frankly quite easy to do. When doing so, please make sure that items are not inserted into the publisher field in italics instead of placing it in the work field. In other words, |publisher=''The Guardian'' is wrong but |work=The Guardian is right.