Talk:U.S. Route 63 in Iowa/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 19:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This article intrigues me and I am very interested to see if it will meet the criteria to be a GA. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Review

The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, 98.8% of authorship is one user, Fredddie. It is currently ranked a B class article, assessed on 21 November 2020 by Freddie, but saw further development on 15 April 2021.

• The images are tagged with appropriate licenses under Creative Commons or in the Public Domain.

• The page has been checked with Writix, which confirms content is free of plagiarism.

• The article relies heavily on newspapers. Please confirm that they meet WP:NMEDIA.

• There are citations in the Infobox, but I think all these are referenced in the main body. Consider removing these as the data in line with WP:INFOBOXREF.

• There is a bold mention of Daniel Boone Trail in the lead. Later the article states "What is now the US 63 corridor has been used, under various names, for over 100 years." Please create a redirection article for each alternative name and list them in the first sentence as per MOS:LEADALT.

• "The road travels travels on a viaduct over railroad tracks owned by Canadian National that opened on November 1, 2019." Please remove the duplicate word.

• "U.S. Highway 63 was realized the next year." is referenced to a citation that is dated 1920. Please replace this with a reliable citation which dates after 1926.

• "In 1916, then the president of the Daniel Boone Trail Association, McNose accompanied a pathfinder writing for a blue book from Boone to Ottumwa, ensuring the Daniel Boone Trail was recorded correctly for the next edition." Is this McHose who is mentioned before?

• "The rest of the connection to Denver finished in 2012." is unreferenced. Please provide a reliable source.

@Fredddie: Great work. Please ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Simongraham: I believe I have addressed everything in your review. –Fredddie™ 07:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fredddie: That looks excellent. simongraham (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   it contains no original research;

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

   it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

4. It has a neutral point of view

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

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

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass -- simongraham (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.