Talk:Texas State Highway 168/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Prabash.A (talk · contribs) 18:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to this in a moment. Prabash.Akmeemana 18:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Prabash.A: How is the review coming along? --Rs chen 7754 00:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Im on it now, I took my time to carefully review the GA guidelines following an issue with one of my previous reviews, sorry for the delay! Prabash.Akmeemana 01:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- @Prabash.A: Ping, again. --Rs chen 7754 05:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Is it possible to expand the road history section a bit more? For example: "By 1994, the highway had been extended to approximately 0.9 miles (1.4 km) in length." I think that part could be built up a bit more.
If possible try to reorganize and build up on the lead section, talk more about the roads purpose and history, it tells me that the road is one of the shortest in the state, is it possible to incorporate it into the route description section?
That's about it for now, when the issues have been tweaked I will add more comments as it improves. Prabash.Akmeemana 01:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the last sentence (By 1994, the highway...), but all the rest of the history is as detailed as I can make it. I expanded the lead, and its now two short paragraphs in length. If you have any other concerns, I'll be happy to try and address them. Thanks for the review, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Awardgive, I'll be taking this over per Prashant's request. More in a day or two. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have addressed your concerns. If you see anything else you think needs to be corrected, I'll be happy to oblige. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by new reviewer[edit]

"The route was first proposed in 1933, traveling through Atascosia and Wilson counties" -- this phrasing is a bit unclear to me. Would it be correct to rewrite it as "A route that traveled through Atascosia and Wilson counties was first proposed in 1933"?

I tried to clarify/ fix the sentence.

"No portion of the roadway is listed on the National Highway System,[8] a network of roads important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility.[9]" -- this seems like a mild bit of original research. That's not to say the conclusion isn't correct, but why mention this at all if no sources on the subject do? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard for articles on roads. The highway's inclusion on the National Highway System would mean it would be eligible for additional aid from the federal government. However, in order to clarify the route not being on the system, I added a more relevant map. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~minor clarity question regarding lead.~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	This article relies almost entirely on primary sources, which I don't like to see, but they're reliable ones.
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~See question above~~
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA