Talk:U.S. Route 80 in Arizona/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wyatt2049 (talk · contribs) 12:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.	The article is clear. There is great spelling. However, the grammar is improper in a few places.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes, the article does meet the manual of style. The lead section is brief and does not go into much detail. The layout of the article is proper and easy to use. All other categories were also not a problem.
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.	The article does contain a goof list of references. They are proper in the area.
	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).	The citations are perfect and do not violate standards.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No. The article has no violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The aspects of the topic are good and not out of scope.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	In my opinion, there is quite a few details about some things.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is all ab out it's history. There is not much about it today.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There has been no issues.
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.	Yes, there is no copyright violations.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There on topic.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article does not meet good article criteria. See the template above for the details. Address the issues, and then renominate the article.

@Wyatt2049: Are you really sure that "At 13th Street, highways curved east passing the Arizona State University main campus onto Apache Boulevard." is proper grammar? Please, be more thorough.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wyatt2049: That is not quite what Wikipedia:Neutral point of view means. Specifically, please read WP:DUE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This review is very bad. World War II is going to be all about history, does that mean that it fails NPOV as well? I am going to undo this review and put it back in the queue. Matthew, I apologize that this was your first experience at GAN. --Rs chen 7754 16:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: It's not an issue. I appreciate you putting it back in the queue. Either way, he did have a good point on the grammar. That could use some improvement. I'll get right on it when I have time tonight. Honestly, I wasn't really that upset either. It's not the end of the world. But the history thing I have to agree is downright silly. I mean, US 80 is a fully decommissioned highway in Arizona for crying out loud. How is there supposed to be anything current on a road that no longer exists? It is quite literally nothing but history, unless you count the Historic Road designation. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 19:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue I had, besides the alleged NPOV issue, was that for something like grammar, the article should have been put on hold for 7 days instead of outright failed. But considering how very cursory this review was (including that there could be areas of improvement that were glossed over), it's probably best to start over with a fresh reviewer. --Rs chen 7754 23:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues? I hope whatever the issues are they're fixable. I've worked on this article now for four years and would like to make it as good as possible. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 21:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]