Talk:Illinois Route 22

Illinois Route 22 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 4, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 13, 2009	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
February 16, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

U.S. Roads: State highways / Illinois Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics

U.S. state highways

Locations

Illinois

This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.

This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Article recognition:

	This article was the selected article of the U.S. Roads Portal in April 2010.

Illinois Mid‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Illinois Route 22/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --- Dough 48 72 16:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

The article has all the required sections, sufficient images, and a map.
There are several areas of the article that contain uncited information.
Reference 2 is a personal website and not a reliable source.

Due to the bottom two being major issues, I will have to fail the article. One more references can be added, the article may be renominated. --- Dough 48 72 16:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bunch more references/citations. I didn't want to excessively cite, but nearly everything mentioned in article can be found from the supplied references. As for reference that is a personal website, it is, however it very reliable as it is even directly mentioned on IDOTs official site. [1] I really think that source should be accepted. There's is no other history that I could find and as for the citations, unless you want me to tediously cite every sentence repeatedly, this is very close to being completely cited. This has been a painstaking effort and I really hope it can be promoted. RoadView (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There should be citations for every piece of information in the article. If there are multiple sentences together that use one citation, then a citation should be placed at the end of the group of sentences. Generally, a citation should exist at the end of every paragraph. As for the personal website, this is a rare occasion in which, upon further examination, the site may be acceptable. However, it should be used carefully. ---Dough4872 04:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added further citations, many of which seemed excessive. The lead is cited less due to the fact that many GA leads I see have limited citations because the information is repeated and cited later on. I'm not really sure what more I can do with the citations, I already feel as if I am starting to lower the quality of the article with too many citations. I have spent upwards of 30 hours with researching/editing this single article and it is getting to the point where it is much more work and frustration than anything. I have hopes of getting this promoted one more time and probably working on additional articles. But now I am seriously discouraged from doing this as the process has become so incredibly tedious, extended, and repetitive that this may be it for the serious editing. I can't even imagine the amount of time and the corrections that would be needed for a FA attempt. Maybe I need a second opinion on this but, is this finally getting promoted or is there even further that work must be done? RoadView (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is looking better, but I will leave it up to a second reviewer to review it and determine whether this can be a GA. ---Dough 48 72 20:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Illinois Route 22/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Lots of spots of unencyclopedic prose that need fixing
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
some sources that aren't reliable
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Few spots of prose that read a bit boosterish
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:

Specific concerns

Current ref 2 is a reprint of a 1928 map, so it should be formatted as a map, not a website. The author isn't Rich Carlson, its whoever put out the map first.
- I believe I corrected this RoadView (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.n9jig.com/21-40.html a reliable source? Looks like a personal website to me.
- This reference is a personal website, however it very reliable as it is even directly mentioned on IDOTs official site. [2] I really think it should be accepted. I mentioned this on the 1st GAN and I hope it will be allowed because it is the only source I could find and seems to be reliable RoadView (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.mapboundary.com/ a reliable source?
- Well I'm not exactly sure how to prove it but the maps are taken from Google and the boundaries generally match up to the GIS from the other Lake County sources I used. I took out 1 of those references, which only leaves 1 left. If necessary I can remove the last 1 because I'm not sure how else to explain how it is reliable. I can attest to its accuracy as can anyone who wants to verify it by looking up a city near them. RoadView (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://local.yahoo.com/info-17186194-hewitt-associates-incorporated-lincolnshire a reliable source?
- Again this just displays the address and location of the address on a Yahoo map. Yahoo seems to be generally accepted as a reliable source. If this isn't accepted I'm not sure how much more reliability is needed. This address can be confirmed by checking it on any other site such as white/yellow pages. If absolutely necessary I can change this. RoadView (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current refs 8 through 21 lack publishers, which are needed per WP:V.
- I attempted to correct these RoadView (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=7968 a reliable source?
- This is kind of related to the 2 above. Anyone can check its reliability by using it for a couple of minutes. The imagery isn't fake or anything. I previously used Google Earth as a source but I was unable to link directly to the 2002 imagery so I changed it to this site which easily seems to be reliable. I'm not sure how else I can prove this RoadView (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: "During the 1990s, it became the subject of much concern for local residents regarding expansion. By the late 2000s, the delays have come and gone and it is has emerged as a state route that is largely capable of handling the daily traffic and one that is ready to look to the future." Two problems with this: 1) What delays? You don't mention any cause for delays, so the first mention of delays confuses the reader, and 2) the last part of the last sentence is unencyclopedic and reads like a press release, should be reworded.
- Made the necessary changes RoadView (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Route: "...much more rural as it enters Lake County[6] about a half mile[7] east and then Lake Barrington." Err.. "and then Lake Barrington" what? Something appears to be missing here.
- Reworded RoadView (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"... the road continues its scenic journey as it crosses paths with..." unencylopedic, suggest cutting "scenic" or explain WHY its scenic.
- Cut "scenic" RoadView (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early history: "The name Half Day Road has been thought to have gotten its name because, prior to the 1900s..." is very convoluted. Suggest "The name Half Day Road is erroneously thought to derive from the tall-tale that prior to the 1900s..." or something similar.
- Changed RoadView (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recent history: "It was even further back, in 1971, that the section of road in and near Lincolnshire, from Illinois 83 to Interstate 94, had been known to be opposed for widening by its residents." Convoluted and unclear. Needs rewording.
- Reworded RoadView (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The process of planning, to funding, to construction was eventually in sight; that is until 2003 when the project was delayed for a year due to state budget cutbacks." Unencyclopedic, suggest "The entire process of planning through securing funding was complete by 2003 when state budget cutbacks delayed construction by a year."
- Changed RoadView (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"At long last, the entire project was complete.." sounds like a press release and unencylopedic, needs rewording.
- Reworded RoadView (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Future: "Now that most of Illinois 22 has been expanded to four lanes, the question remains as to when the remaining gaps will be addressed." unencyclopedic, needs rewording.
- Reworded RoadView (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"... shelved indefinitely for the time being." Needs rewording to avoid the inderminate time frame. Something like "As of (blah), the plans have been put on hold indefinitely."
- Reworded RoadView (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"... appears that this section of Illinois 22 may get widened on its own." needs rewording as it's implying that the road itself will do the widening.
- Reworded RoadView (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to correct each item you noted. I hope my changes will suffice, but if not I'll see what I can do. RoadView (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the subject of the article isn't generally noted for contentiousness, and how little the questionable sources are used, I'm not going to hold up GA status on that, but the use of those sources would probably be enough to derail a FAC, just for future reference. On how to show a source is reliable, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]