Talk:Skyline Drive/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 20:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See specific prose comments below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
But see below for a couple of minor tweaks to the citations.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Everything looks good here, although I might suggest increasing the size of the panoramic photo in line with what we did with a similar photo on Brockway Mountain Drive.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Holding for the standard seven days to allow some minor corrections before passing. Imzadi 1979 → 21:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead comments

"The drive provides access to numerous trails, including the Appalachian Trail, and is also used for biking and horseback riding." There's a little ambiguity with the sentence structure regarding the commas in the sentence, so I would add the word "it" between "and is".

Added. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RD comments

"Skyline Drive takes a winding north-south path" needs a proper dash instead of the hyphen.

Fixed. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"These all require extra precaution." I think that last word should be plural.

Fixed. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd revise the prose in this section to avoid mentioning every single overlook. That's the purpose of the RJL-esque PoI section below. I'd just gloss over most of them, highlighting some as needed, and just simplify everything a bit. It's not that what's in the article is wrong, but it's a bit tedious to read.

Cut back the mention of several of the overlooks. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note, but "southwest", et al, is an adjective or a noun, and when used to describe a verb like "continues", "turns" or "runs", you need the adverb "southwesterly" or the prepositional phrase "to the southwest". The entire RD section has this error.

Fixed. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History comments

You might want to add inflation-adjusted numbers for the various dollar amounts in the article. Additionally, you could simplify some of the numbers, from "$1,000,000" to "$1 million", where appropriate. (Using the {{formatprice}} template for the output of the inflation values will round off such large numbers and convert them into that text format anyway.)

Added inflation conversions and simplified $1 million. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"either voluntarily of forcibly" that "of" should be an "or".

Fixed. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also comments

Any items, like "Skyland Resort" that are already linked in the body of the article should not be be repeated and linked here.

Cut out redundant links. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References comments

I'd insert |date=n.d. on note 6 for consistency with the other footnotes.

Added. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to merge notes 1–3 together into a single footnote listing all three maps since they're only cited together. It would clear up the "^[1][2][3]" situation in the two spots where they are cited. Additionally, you should cite the delineators listed on the maps as the authors and include |work=Historic American Engineering Record as they're components of a larger publication, like the individual maps within an atlas.

I don't know how would I go about doing this. The three maps are distinct as they cover different sections of the park and have three different URLs. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes 17 and 18 are missing a publication location for the book, something listed on the other book citations.

Added. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note 20 links the publisher when that same agency was linked as the author in note 10.

Removed link. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links comments

The last link has gone dead according to the link checker tool.

Removed. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The categories might be better organized.

Grouped them a little better. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have made fixes to the article. Dough4872 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I combined the three maps into a single footnote. All that was needed was to merge them into the same <ref>...</ref> so that they occupied the same footnote. I also credited the people and project the NPS requested be credited on the maps and added the missing map scales. Everything else looks good enough to pass. Imzadi 1979 → 01:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]