Talk:North Carolina Highway 68/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Neonblak (talk · contribs) 16:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article today. I did a quick read-thru, and don't anticipate many, if an, comments or concerns.Neonblak ^talk - 16:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tools

I am unsure as to what reference #1 is related to inside the infobox. It seems to be referencing the length of the highway, but when I open the reference, it illustrates an entirely different highway (NC 102E). Also, if reference #2 was supposed to the intended link, it has a slightly different highway length of 30.4 instead of the 30.8 (I know, nitpicky).
It looks like references 18 and 20 are dead links, and reference 2 claims to be an uncategorized redirect.
The other tools are down, so I have to assume they are compliant.

Lead and Route description

No issues.

History and Future

"In 1936, NC 68 was rerouted on south going into High Point to US 29A/US 70A (Lexington Avenue);" - Is this supposed to read... "In 1936, NC 68 was rerouted south through High Point to US 29A/US 70A (Lexington Avenue);" ?
"Future NCDOT plans call for the construction of a new four-lane highway connecting between NC 68 and US 220." - I am fairly certain you do not need the word "between" there, seems to be much easier to say "...a new four-lane highway connecting NC 68 and US 220", or is there a word missing?

Conclusion

A well-written article, just the few items that need addressing, everything else looks great! Neonblak ^talk - 22:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Edits[edit]

Ref 1 is an original reference by the original author of the article citing the length of the road I changed the 30.8 to 30.4 because every little detail matters :) Ref 2 was also changed-funny story here. I used this from my other GA article NC 102 and just forgot to replace the URL, but I relaced it now and everything should be ok Ref # 18 and 20 were removed cause of they were dead links lastly-yeah both of those were in need of some grammar fixes so thanks :) -BTW if this is in need of a grammar fix its cause I'm a little tired :D

Changes look great, except it looks like a ref error was created when you removed the dead links. I would have just removed the ref 21 myself, but I better let you handle that. I'm not sure if you meant to do that or not.Neonblak ^talk - 03:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a BOT "rescued" a dead link. Interesting.Neonblak ^talk - 13:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't see the problem with references #21. It is right beside the Interstate 73 interchange (just in case you didn't see it). Please let me know what is the issue and I will change is ASAP--Ncchild (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, the link is a bot-rescued, broken link as a result of a dead link that was deleted. What I need to know, so that I can pass this article, is that link, along with another dead-link source that was deleted, vital to the information provided in the article? In other words, if there is unsourced information in the article, it doesn't meet the GA requirements, and I cannot pass it. You should, if possible, find and updated source for the information, or delete the information that those links were the sole source used...if that is the case.Neonblak ^talk - 05:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I just didn't understand what you meant. Because I thought the link is somewhat vital to the intersection because it shows the plans for the future interchange I went on NCDOT and found the project and redid the link so it should be good to go now--Ncchild (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is much better, I will go ahead and pass the article. Thank you for time and effort ! Neonblak ^talk - 07:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]