Talk:Delaware Route 286/GA2

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

This page was created by merging two articles, Delaware Route 286 and Maryland Route 286. Only one of which, Delaware, was a Good Article. I feel that merging a GA with another article does not automatically make the new article a GA. So here we are. Review forthcoming. –Fredddie ™ 16:04, 23 January 2014 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
1. All of the route abbreviations should have a  .
  Added non-breaking spaces. Dough 48 72 01:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. "The road roughly parallels the south side of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal through rural areas." It doesn't in urban areas?
  Fixed. Dough 48 72 01:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. The lead should probably be split into two paragraphs.
  Split. Dough 48 72 01:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wording like "areas of farms" and "farm fields" make me cringe. There are more succinct words that describe them better.
  Changed some wording. Dough 48 72 01:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Meh. –Fredddie ™ 05:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. The history section should be rewritten to be a cohesive narrative. It reads like Delaware and Maryland sentences were alternated in the merger.
  Rewrote. Dough 48 72 01:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. I don't know if it's standard procedure for Maryland highway articles, but there is inconsistency in how MD 537C is mentioned. It's stated as MD 537C in the prose but always linked as MD 537.
  Maryland articles link to the number without the suffix even if they have the suffix. All the suffixed routes of MD 537 are covered in the MD 537 article. Dough 48 72 01:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Coverage from outside sources (ones that don't have "department of transportation" or "highway administration" in the title) would be beneficial. Hint: The canal was expanded and Bethel was abandoned.
Added some details about the canal and abandonment of Bethel from newspaper article. Dough 48 72 01:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you got the what, but I think it would be more interesting if we had the why. Why did the Army Corps of Engineers decide to widen the canal? Is the canal navigable now? Was it before the expansion? Was there any effort to save Bethel? –Fredddie ™ 05:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added a little more detail about the canal expansion. However, we do not want to go to off-topic as this article is about Route 286 and not the canal. Dough 48 72 05:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that what may seem like an off-topic detail turned out to be the reason why a town was abandoned and the highway that led to it was subsequently turned away. Also, would DE 286 even exist if the canal wasn't expanded? Outside forces can influence the highway system and we can't ignore them when they do. –Fredddie ™ 05:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
1. Like I hinted to in the above section, there is only a passing mention of the canal's expansion and abandonment of Bethel.
  See above. Dough 48 72 01:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Some of the details of the Delaware half of the article (AADT and NHS) are missing from the Maryland half.
  Added Maryland AADT and NHS. Dough 48 72 01:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Since it was apparently necessary to split a 3-mile-long route into subsections, AADT and NHS, not to mention a route summary sentence, would go nicely into a mini-lead above the Maryland subheader.
  Added mini-lead. Dough 48 72 01:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
If an admin reads this, do you think it's necessary to do a history merge?
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):
The images could stand to be touched up a bit to improve their quality.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I will give this the standard seven days to fix up. If someone could add the former alignment of MD 286 to the KML file, that would be great. My own capacity to do so will be limited for the next few days. –Fredddie ™ 17:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Made some fixes to the article. Dough 48 72 01:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is better as a whole now, so it will stay at GA. –Fredddie ™ 05:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]