Talk:Interstate 376/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Thank you for nominating this article. Please fix redirect links Interstate 376 Business (Moon Township, Pennsylvania) and PA Route 60 Business. Please disambiguate Liberty Avenue, Oakland, Pennsylvania, Trailblazer. No invalid external links.

Is it reasonably well written?
A (prose):
"The Parkway East opened June 5, 1953 from PA" - comma after year.

"This section of I-376 is branded as "Toll I-376","->"This section of I-376 is signed as "Toll I-376","

Am I correct that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 not only paid for the interchanges but also paid for the redesignation signage? See fn. 25.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Perhaps add a sentence or two more into the lead. How about mentioning the Business Loop route?
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Need sources for "I-376 is currently the fifth-longest auxiliary Interstate route in the system; only Interstate 476, Interstate 495, Interstate 287, and Interstate 135 are longer, and I-376 is also similar in length to Interstate 275. In addition, I-376 is longer than some primary Interstate routes, including Interstate 19, Interstate 66, Interstate 73, the western leg of Interstate 86, and Interstate 97, with I-376 coming close in length to Interstate 12, Interstate 83, and Interstate 99."

Is http://www.pahighways.com/interstates/I376.html a reliable source? I honestly don't know enough about it.

Need source for "Along with the business loop of Interstate 83 in York, Pennsylvania, Business Loop I-376 is one of only two business Interstate routes in the state of Pennsylvania."

fn. 18 and 19 needs an accessdate

fn. 24 has moved to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/i76.cfm and needs an accessdate.

fn. 25 needs an accessdate.

fn. 30 needs an accessdate.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Any new construction planned?

Who collects the tolls? Are the tolls permanent or just until the bonds are amortized? What are the toll rates?

B. Focused:
Despite the comments on the talk page, the GA criteria do not require milage in the exit table, or even the inclusion of any exit table.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit wars.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article represents significant work by its author, but is far from GA standards. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria have nothing to do with any particular wikiproject, and you are free to ignore comments that imply otherwise. Your article will be judged only on the GA criteria.

Comment: The USRD guidelines require an exit table BEFORE an article is nominated for GA. An article without one will immediately be placed up for GA review and likely removed on the basis of not following WP:RJL. This would fall under criterion 3A. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:"Overview" is not a standard USRD section and should be incorporated in the "Route description." --P C B 14:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The websites, Pennsylvania Highways (footnotes 1, 7, 16, 18, 19, 23) and Central PA/MD roads (footnote 4), are self-published sources. That makes the two websites ineligible for usage as sources under Wikipedia policy, and an article that uses them ineligible for listing as a Good Article under the criteria (GA criterion 2b). Interstate 476, a Good Article promoted in 2007, does not use either site as a source, and it has a full exit list with distances. Interstate 676 likewise does not use the website as a source, and it was promoted last year with a full exit list. The exit list would be considered a "major aspect" of the subject (GA criterion 3a). Imzadi 1979 → 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the USRD standards, which have been forged and refined in the face of hundreds of successful Good Article nominations and dozens of Featured Article candidacies, this article needs additional information added and some sections reorganized.
- There is no mention of the "History" section in the lead beyond one sentence: "When the route was first conceived, it was an east–west highway that only connected Downtown Pittsburgh to Monroeville." Given that the history encompasses six subsections with 16 paragraphs, this is quite the omission.
- There should be a "Tolls" section, probably after the "Route description" section that discusses that subject. The section doesn't need to be long, but it should include information on how the tolls are collected, where the collection points are and what the payment methods are. Some basic price information should be included, but you don't need to run through the whole toll schedule in detail.
- Toll roads usually have a "Services" section as well. If there are significant service areas, especially along the tolled segments, they should be mentioned. Normally, standard highway rest areas are not typically mentioned on non-tolled highways because these small parking areas with restrooms are a dime a dozen. On toll roads, motorists have an incentive to remain on the road without exiting for adjacent communities if the toll road agency provides services. Additionally, these service areas usually have restaurants and gas stations, businesses that are not allowed at non-tolled Interstate Highway rest areas, further distinguishing them. If I-376 lacks these service areas, then the section would not be an appropriate addition to the article. Some articles (M-28 (Michigan highway), U.S. Route 131) have subsections on services in their route descriptions that are not as detailed as the full sections in toll roads (Kansas Turnpike).
These omissions impact criteria 1b (lead) and 3a (major aspects). They need to be addressed before the article meets the criteria. As well, the issues about the two "roadgeek" websites have to be cleared up before the article can be listed as a Good Article. Imzadi 1979 → 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, about two more sentences should fix the lead. I don't see any reason to change the 3(a) changes that I have listed. I did not mean to imply that a full toll schedule must be included, only some basic price information. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article again, and it still does not contain basic information regarding tolls. I had hoped to continue to work with the nominator to get the article to meet the GA criteria, and I have the utmost respect for the nominator's fine work in the face of a difficult editing environment. The nominator has suspended his work on the article, and I am taking a break from reviewing road GA nominations for a while. Accordingly, I am terminating this review with a "not listed" rating. This is an important article and I hope that it joins the ranks of GA articles in the future. Again, I commend the nominator for a lot of fine work on this article. Racepacket (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]