Talk:Roads and freeways in metropolitan Phoenix/GA2

GA Review

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

Regarding previous issues raised at last GAR - addressed - not sure why MTF has been slow about your map request. I left a note at the requests page...
- - Thank you!

*1a) beelines for downtown? Not sure if that's formal...

- - Fixed.
- ~~1.4 - lost the C in Continuing, duplexing needs to be wikilinked~~
  - Fixed.
- ~~2 - seems pointless to have (s) in the heading as there's only one~~
  - Fixed.
- ~~3 - extensions of routes should probably be merged with the route in section 1~~
  - I don't understand what this means.
  - You should probably merge the description of the route with the description in sec 1 if it's just an extension of the route and not a whole new route.
  - I'd rather not merge the "Future" piece about Loop 202 with the "Existing" piece because it's not in existence yet -- and I do specify which particular piece of the Loop 202 that I discuss in each section (Future and Existing). Please let me know if this is absolutely neccessary for GA and eventually FA status, if so then I'll find a way to fix it. Thanks. Rko202 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~4.4 - Interstate 10 Reliever - is that the official name?~~
  - It used to be, but I guess it was dropped. Fixed.
- ~~6 - not sure that this deserves its own section.~~
  - Fixed.
- ~~7 - spell out 30~~
  - Fixed.
1b) - the article starts a bit abruptly.
- - I'm not sure how to fix this.
    - Just add a sentence to the start of the article sort of introducing the topic. You jump right into the topic with the first sentence.
      - I tried to find a GA to look at as a model, but they all seem to do this.
        Just write a sentence introducing the topic.
        Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rko202 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~5 - not comfortable with list in a GA. Maybe make it a table at least, if it isn't converted to prose?~~
  - Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rko202 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 - there are entire sections missing sources.
- - Fixed.
    - Okay, but they need to be inline refs.
      - Which in particular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rko202 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        All of them. You cannot have external links in the article; you must use ref tags. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed. Rko202 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, but the old external links need to be removed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rko202 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 - ~~a history section may be necessary. Currently a lot of it is briefly explained in the lead...~~
- - Much of the history is covered in the Funding section.
4-5 - pass
~~6 - again, need a map, but I don't know what's up with MTF on that one...~~
- Found one for temporary use from the commons. Rko202 (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This article needs a bit of cleanup before GA and especially for ACR and FA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let the reviewer cross stuff out. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing. I'm not completely confident in the structure, but this is an unconventional article in general (as it's not on a highway like the vast majority of USRD articles). You may need to reevaluate it again at ACR or FAC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]