Talk:Virginia State Route 27

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Virginia State Route 27/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dough4872 04:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The article contains poorly structured sentences such as "Route 27 is part of the National Highway System as either a part of the Strategic Highway Network (west of the Mixing Bowl) or an arterial highway (otherwise)." and "As a result, this ramp was eliminated and replaced with a ramp from the Eastbound Route 27 into the Pentagon South Parking Lot." In addition, the article needs an adequate lead per WP:LEAD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citations needed for "Route 27 is part of the National Highway System as either a part of the Strategic Highway Network (west of the Mixing Bowl) or an arterial highway (otherwise). It is a limited access four or six lane divided highway for its entire length." and "...Henderson Hall, the headquarters of the United States Marine Corps, the Air Force Memorial, the Pentagon, the Navy Annex, the Pentagon Memorial, the Pentagon City Mall, and Arlington National Cemetery."

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The Exit list could include mileposts as well as information on the location of the route. In addition, the route description needs better organization.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The prose of the article needs a lot of fixes before it can even be considered for GA. Therefore, I will have to fail the article. The article may be renominated once these issues are addressed. Dough4872 04:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mileposts

There are always mileposts on a highway, even if the signs aren't physically posted. At the very least, the southern/western terminus is MP 0.00(0) and the northern/eastern terminus is the length. Michigan doesn't post any milepost signs on non-freeway highways, yet the distance from the starting terminus to the intersection in question can be determined and located in the articles. The junction list for this article fails MOS:RJL because this column is missing, and either the location (county/location) columns or the location table note are missing. Imzadi 1979 → 19:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I appreciate your help on this and thank you for your edits. If an entire road is all within one city or one county, what purpose is served adding that to the table? " If the roadway only passes through one geographic location, the column(s) should be omitted and a note placed above the top of the column." MOS:RJL Racepacket (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Virginia State Route 27/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I hope to review the article over the next day or so.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VASCE-History/VASCE-Mixing-Bowl.htm appears to be a WP:SPS.

   Yes, but this is not a BLP, and we are relying on posted Virginia Dept. of Transportation photos of an interchange, so small chance of fraud or subjectivity. Racepacket (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Detailed review

General

• Please run the disambiguation links tool above; you have 3 of them.
• Source 13 - how do you know that that's VA 27? - it is an ariel photograph which is consistent with all other maps and photographs.

Lead

• Way too short. Please see WP:LEAD. - supposed to be 1 or 2 paragraphs for a 13,000 byte article.

Route description

• The route description organization is still flawed. There's one superlong paragraph describing the entire route. Generally in Wikipedia prose you don't want that sort of thing. The paragraphs need to be broken up. - done
• How are you sourcing the "Mixing Bowl"? -done
• "Route 27 then turns to a southwest-to-northeast orientation" - hard to imagine. Maybe indicate that it turns instead? - turn in inperceptible as a part of an interchange
• Source 2 is cited several times for continguous sentences. Unless you add more sources in between go ahead and cut the extra citations out (though they still are needed for each paragraph at a minimum). - don't want to create impression that it is uncited.
• Lots of "has interchanges" - please use variety. - phrase occurs once
• Link Fort Myer. - done
• "The first interchange with Route 244 offers a very short merge area because of the proximity to the exit ramps to I-395 and Arlington Ridge Road." - probably true, but Wikipedia isn't the place to comment on that. WP:OR. - sourced
• Back to the Mixing Bowl again?! - it is the main reference point of the route description and is about 20% of the length of this route
• And now we're off to 1970. That sentence belongs in the history. - sentence is clarification as to why Mixing Bowl is notable has having a 3-level bridge.
• There's 2 interchanges with Route 244? This could be made more clear, rather than going right into "The first interchange..."
• "Also at the second Route 244 interchange," is a bad grammatical construction nonetheless. -done
• "Route 27 is the northern terminus of the reversible high occupancy vehicle lanes of I-395." - but this is the VA 27 article, does this need to be here? - because the traffic flows betweem the reversible lanes and Route 27 without ever entering the normal lanes of I-395.
• "The westbound entrance to these lanes have a series of manually closed barriers to prevent an accidental oncoming collision during the hours each day when traffic flows to the east on the HOV lanes." - again probably true, but you can't source that. Not relevant anyway.
• "involves" - too colloquial, choose a different word. Also, listing the three roads like that makes it hard to follow. - changed to accesses

• The second paragraph should go at the beginning of the route description, or you could even fit it into the lead. - I moved it out of the lead, because items in the lead are required to also be discussed in the main sections of the article.
• The third paragraph shouldn't be there. You should mention the sites at the places the route passes by them. - I tried that but it was impossible to follow because the points of interest are so intertwined with the various ramps of the interchanges. This is a 2 mile long route along some of the nation's most notable structures.

• In summary, the RD is not very well written. I can't tell if the prose describes the route in any sort of order or if it jumps around randomly along the route.- it is in west to east order
• The RD also goes dangerously close to what a lot of USRD RD's are like: Route X interchanges with Route Y and crosses over the Z River. Then, it intersects County Route 232 and goes through an interchange with Route D before crossing into farmland. After interchanging with Route 2, Route X interchanges with Route S before entering A County. (A route description should answer the question, why does the reader care about the road? It shouldn't be a mindless recitation of interchanges and county lines and zoning. Sure, that may be okay for a Start-Class article, but for the GA stage, it's gotta be more interesting than that).

History

• What was the Pentagon Road network? - described in the separate article
• It's just tacky to quote in the second sentence, when it's pretty easy to paraphrase it yourself. - I can't paraphrase it any better and don't want to be guilty of a close paraphrase.
• We go from road to roads suddenly... what happened? Do you mean the roads in the system? - all of the roads in the Pentagon Road network including Rt. 27 and Rt. 110.
• "the Mixing Bowl was reconfigured so that the Route 27 lanes were separated as collector lanes from the through lanes of I-395.[2] Because the collector lanes were built on the site of the ramp from westbound Shirley Highway to the eastbound Route 27, the ramp was replaced with a ramp from the eastbound Route 27 into the Pentagon South Parking Lot.[2]" - Those are cited off source 2... which is a map from the present day. To make claims like that you usually need to cite 2 maps from before and after, so you can show a change. - also cite to Road To The Future
• "proximate"? - Route 27 is the closest street or road to the point of impact and the plane barely cleared Route 27 as it crashed into the side of the building that faces Route 27.
• "has been rated as "poor"" - how? In structural integrity? In aesthetics? - state engineers grade each bridge on structural integrity
• "Construction is expected in 2012 and completed in 2015, if funds are available." - bad construction

Junction list

• Junction list - notes - only the first letter in each sentence and the street names should be capitalized, plus Route. Nothing else. St. should be spelled out.
• Arlington County is an independent city... but this isn't really clear in the hatnote. Not sure what the solution is here, though. - Arlington is not a city, it is a county without any cities in it. -checked

Images

• Not a WP:GA requirement per se, but please include WP:ALT text for your images.

Overall recommendation

I'm failing this article. It's clear that (while the first reviewer could have provided more details, granted) there was a quite rushed attempt to fix only some of the things addressed at the last review before a quick renomination. GA shouldn't be about getting the green circle with a plus in it; it should be about writing articles that match the GA standard. I could "hold" the article, but it's clear that there's quite a bit of work that needs to be done here. Please, take your time and fix what has been outlined before a renomination, or you'll go through this cycle again. - if you compare with prior version you can see how much the article has improved.

That may be so. But it's not improved to the point of where it can be considered for GA status. I'm not going to respond to your comments above, as it's clear that you want to do things your own way, regardless of what anyone else says. The problem with this is "your way" is not the way that works well with Wikipedia standards. Your rush to quickly renominate the article is disconcerting as well. If you think this review is flawed, you're always welcome to go to WP:GAR. However, your renominating the article within 12 hours of its failure is just another recipe for another failure at GAN. --Rschen7754 20:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rschen7754 03:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Virginia State Route 27/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Imzadi 1979 → 20:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See below for detailed comments.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See below for detailed comments.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See below for detailed comments.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I would suggest though that you contact WP:USRD/MTF for a map and remove the 1945 map, or reduce its prominence.

   Pentagon Road Network Map shows original road and Mixing Bowl in its context, which was subsequently distorted by the development of I-395. Racepacket (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

   That's fine, but that image appears as a part of the Route description, which is the modern context for the road. I suggest you get a current map, which is possible by making a request at the Maps Task Force. The map you've used doesn't even label what is now Route 27 to give a reader context. That map could also be cropped down to focus on what is Route 27 to the exclusion of the other roadways, and it could be displayed at a smaller size, say the defualt thumbnail size. You've set it to be 10px wider than the infobox, and that makes it almost as tall as the infobox, exaggerating its prominence. Imzadi 1979 → 21:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There are too many unaddressed items from the second GA review. This article was minimally edited and rushed right back to GAN without completing the needed work. I urge the nominator to complete the items from the reviews, and get a third-party to copy edit the article before any subsequent nominations. Wikipedia does not have a deadline, and this article can wait to be nominated at such time as it actually warrants the promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 21:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Criterion 1 comments

1. Lead is too short and does not adequately summarize the content of the article. This is a holdover from the previous review that was not completed before renomination.

   It was expanded between nominations. Racepacket (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

   It's still too short. Imzadi 1979 → 21:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

2. The level of writing quality has not been sufficiently improved in the article since the last review. Please have a third party give the article a copy edit. I suggest the fine folks at WP:GoCE may be of use in this regard.
3. The RD section is poorly organized. The first paragraph describes the whole route. The second then jumps back to a point in the middle. The third paragraph seems to pick up someplace in the middle of the route as well. A reader should not need a map open as a reference to follow the RD section. Please, re-organize this section so that it starts at one terminus and proceeds to the opposing terminus without backtracking. The fourth paragraph should be integrated into the rest of the section. The various highlights and landmarks should be mentioned in the locations where they actually fall along the route.

   Implemented suggestion from GA2. Racepacket (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

   That's fine, but it's still an issue. The organization is poor in the version I reviewed. Imzadi 1979 → 21:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

4. "Route 27 is proximate to the site of the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon, and the route was closed for weeks following the attack as a security measure." The word proximate can be replaced by next or near without a loss of meaning, and it would improve how the sentence sounds. Also unaddressed from the previous review.
5. The last paragraph of the History is short. Can it either be expanded or combined with another paragraph? The last sentence is poorly written, and this is an unaddressed comment from the last review.

Criterion 2 comments

1. Footnote 1 is missing an accessdate. Additionally, I believe that there is a newer version of that report that is available. I suggest verifying that the length and distances have not been updated, and switching to the newer source.
2. Footnote #3 is a self-published source. It does not merit the exceptions under that policy. Please replace the source with one that is considered reliable or strike the information from the article. This is also a holdover from the previous review that was not completed before renomination.
3. Please add a source for "although local motorists more recently use that term to refer to the Springfield Interchange on the Capital Beltway in Springfield" or remove it. That sounds like OR without a source.
4. Footnote 15 is to an aerial photo that lacks any labeling of the roads. Please find a better source for this information. If you need aerial photography, I suggest using Google Maps or its kin. They have satellite photos, and they label the names and locations of roadways in the photos.
5. Footnotes 9 and 16 don't have |format=PDF set in the citation templates. While not strictly a part of the GA criteria, this is something that should still be fixed.
6. I'm usually suspicious of any sentence that has three consecutive footnotes at the end of it. - Would you feel better if we listed all three sources in a single footnote?
7. How does footnote 9 support all of the information in the sentences preceding it.
8. No source given for the fact that the road was closed for weeks. Given the nature of the closure, I'm sure that some local newspaper covered the closure in an article. Likewise for the "No stopping" sign installation.
9. Footnote 15 does not show any fences. Remove that detail or resource.

Criterion 3 comments

1. Since you've cited a traffic volume report as a source, it might be nice to include a highlight of the traffic volumes on Route 27 in the article.
2. I would expand on the first sentence of the last paragraph of the RD. I would add a little more information on these closures. This place the traffic counts information would be a good last paragraph for the RD section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Virginia State Route 27. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100801124843/http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov:80/fcdot/pnr_hovmap.htm to http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/fcdot/pnr_hovmap.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100918162846/http://www.fmmc.army.mil:80/sites/about/history-myer.asp to http://www.fmmc.army.mil/sites/about/history-myer.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)