Talk:Dinosaur Diamond/GA1

GA Review

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

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Well, there are some significant problems. Almost the entire Route description lacks sources at ends of paragraphs and where else needed. Also, there has to be more history about making it a scenic byway. 1 sentence doesn't help too much :| - On hold for now.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 10:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is my first attempt to write a road article, so please bear with me. I tried looking at other "scenic byways" for examples, but none of them I saw were of any value. None of them were GAs or FAs, so I'm not sure what the standard would be for this type of article. The route section can be sourced to Google maps, no? I see them a lot in other road articles, so that is no problem. The part I am concerned about is the history of making it a scenic byway. I'm not sure there is a plethora of information out there about this, I'm not even sure what more could be said about it. Frankly, I was more concerned about the "history" of the routes themselves. Does that part look ok? It was difficult trying to separate the history of the entire route from the history of the portions of the routes which make up the Dinosaur Diamond. I think it came out pretty well. Meanwhile, I'll see what I can dig up about the history of the scenic byway designation. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Maps should be sufficient. Also, this is an article about a byway, not the routes it inhabits. I would suggest finding a way to intertwine the route's history and the designation of the scenic byway. (Laws, Acts, Committees, Conservation groups, etc should be much help.)3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 11:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Route section has been thoroughly sourced. I also fixed the problem of overlinking and made a few copyedits. Still working on the history. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have a problem. There is absolutely no information available regarding the history of the formation of the scenic byway. Even if there was information available, I doubt it would be very interesting or informative. Now, here is what I can tell you... the requirements and qualities which a highway must posess in order to be nominated/designated as a scenic byway, what organizations are normally responsible for initiating/handling the nomination (DOTs, travel and tourisms boards, chambers of commerce, etc). But that is about it, nothing specific to the DD itself. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme think for a little while, because I don't want to pass this without more history.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 18:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten a second opinion and am going to fail this article. There are a lot of problems I did not see before and you added a lot of unnecessary technical info for the scenic byway stuff.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]