Talk:Interstate 85 in North Carolina/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: NoobThreePointOh (talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Keresluna (talk · contribs) 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will try and add any comments that I have if possible. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoobThreePointOh: Unfortunately, if 2c isn't fixed shortly (like in two days), I am going to have to fail this nomination per WP:GAFAIL. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 23:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keresluna Hmmm, I'm looking at 2c, and I'm wondering which sections are uncited. Can you tell me which sections need to be improved? Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the whole subsection 'Durham to Virginia' and 'Related routes' are unreferenced. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 23:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's not a lot of info on I-85 from Durham to Virginia (very little sources online). I can definitely fix the "Related routes" section, and probably fix the "Durham to Virginia" section as well. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keresluna

Done. I've added sources in the "Related routes" section. I will try and find some for the "Durham to Virginia" section. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keresluna Alright. I hunted around the web for any reliable sources, and found a lot to help finish the "Durham to Virginia" section by citing the unsourced claims.

Done. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more sections which are unrefernced:

2nd paragraph of the section South Carolina to Charlotte
Last sentence of the first paragraph of Charlotte to Greensboro.
Last sentence of Durham to Virginia.

Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keresluna

Done. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keresluna Let me know if you're still there to finish up the review. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (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.	Done.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Looks fine.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Present.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~Massive amounts of uncited text. Whole subsections and sections are uncited. Fixed. More comments below.~~
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig didn't find anything.
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).	Okay.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Looks fine.
	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.	All checked.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~Probably fail if 2c isn't fixed shortly.~~ Pass.

Prose

'Traffic from US 321 south prior to 2017' to 'Traffic from US 321 south before 2017', optional, but probably more flowing
'A couple miles later, I-85 has an exit' to 'A couple of miles later, I-85 has an exit'
'Here, I-85 turns more northward and enters' not sure why more is used here.
Capitalize mall in 'Concord Mills mall' and wikilink the whole phrase.
'They do not enter Kannapolis, but have several exits signed for it.' remove the comma. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 14:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keresluna Done. Here are the responses to each one.

1. 'Traffic from US 321 south prior to 2017' to 'Traffic from US 321 south before 2017' is fine. I changed that.

2. 'A couple miles later, I-85 has an exit' to 'A couple of miles later, I-85 has an exit'. Did that as well.

3. For 'Here, I-85 turns more northward and enters', I-85 is mostly going in a northeast direction, and even occasionally in an east direction, but I made the change anyway since it's not much of a big deal.

4. 'They do not enter Kannapolis, but have several exits signed for it.' Done with that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oop, and I wikilinked "mall" as well. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Because the previous exit is a northbound-only exit,' to 'Because the previous exit is northbound-only,', optional, but would be nice.
'cross above the southbound lanes and return to normal direction.' to 'cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction.'
'continues to go through wooded forest with no development along' to 'continues to go through a wooded forest with no development along'
'provided for 90-percent federal funding of highways that would become' not sure why there is a hyphen.
Remove all the way in 'Interstate eight lanes all the way to where I-40 turned'. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 15:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Random ref checks:

4: Checks out.

27: Checks out.

39: Checks out. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4: This one is an official NCDOT map for Cleveland County. The Interstate is a little hard to see on the map of the county, but NCDOT maps are usually reliable sources.

27: This is also an NCDOT map for Granville County, but shows the bridges instead.

39: Hendrick Motorsports is a reliable source, I think, and they have several news articles, so I think it counts. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

'Another section of I-85 opened to traffic on September 9, 1958, when an 11.3-mile (18.2 km) stretch in Mecklenburg County was opened.' is uncited. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keresluna Done. There was a source in the NCDOT meeting archive that showed it, so I used that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick replies, I will now pass this article. Cheers! Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]