Talk:Utah State Route 313/GA1

GA Review

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

Hello, I'm RockManQ and I'll be your reviewer (Note: my first review so be a little patient, but don't be afraid to challenge my suggestions). So without -ahem- further ado, let's get this started.

Lead Section

I'm sure you know and have reviewed WP:LEAD, but I'll link it here anyways.

The lead section of an article is what most people read first, so it's where I'm going to start.

A few suggestions:

The entire length of the highway has been designated the Dead Horse Point Mesa Scenic Byway. The entire length part is the only thing I really have a problem with. Can't it just be: The highway is designated as the Dead Horse Point Mesa Scenic Byway. However, I've seen parts of other highways designated as special routes so I'm open to being overruled on this one.
The highway is a toll road. Westbound traffic is charged a state park entrance fee at the park boundary. Does the toll road begin at a state park entrance, and if so which one? There's two in the preceding sentence.
The route was assigned north of Moab in the 1975 in place of Utah State Route 278.... Had I not looked into the infobox, I would of most likely not have known what Moab was. Some causal readers may skip the infobox and not know that it's a town in Utah until the reach the bottom table. Couldn't it be linked in the lead section as well?
SR-313 has remained the same since except for some damage done to the highway in the late 1980s. I know it's explained in detail below in the History paragraph, and that you're not supposed to go into too much detail in the lead, but some more information would be useful. For example, consider saying: SR-313 has remained the same since except for in the late 1980s when a construction crew damaged the highway while rebuilding the road to Canyonlands National Park.

I think that's all for now, when we address these we can move on to more, as I said earlier though I am open to being overruled on these. RockManQ ^(talk) 22:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(FYI) I won't be on for a couple of hours. RockManQ ^(talk) 22:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done.Mitch32^(UP) 03:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good. Looks like everything has been resolved there. On forth! RockManQ ^(talk) 04:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Body Paragraphs

Route description and History will be discussed here.

Again, few suggestions:

Known as the Dead Horse Point Mesa Scenic Byway...; you just stated it in the Intro. I think it's reasonable to assume that people, by the time they get to Route description, will know that it is the Dead Horse Point Mesa Scenic Byway.
Also, by removing that I think it would be better to say; After exiting the parking lot, SR-313 begins to head northward... or something along those lines.
There is an intersection with a local road, and the northward highway begins to turn to the northwest; I don't think you really need the northward part. We already know that.
The route continues in a flat area known as the Big Flat...; since you didn't use connecting road while talking about Long Canyon Road, you shouldn't probably use flat twice here. Know any good synonyms?
At the intersection with Little Canyon Road, SR-313 turns to the northwest once again, however, this pattern straightens out to a northward one; I don't like all the commas here. Splitting them up into two sentences would probably be better.
The route makes a hairpin turn in the mountains, entering the South Fork of the Sevenmile Canyon; you link hairpin turns under switchbacks later in the article. Since this is the first mention of one, it would be best to link it there as well (leave the switchback one; I doubt many people know what that means).
With highways in Moab back in the 1960s limited two just two state-maintained highways, there was no state route built to access Dead Horse Point; Shouldn't it be highways near Moab back in the... The first two should be changed to too Also, I'm not sure if I'm ok with the huge prepositional phrase. Highways near Moab in the 1960's were limited too just two state-maintained highways which precipitated a need for access to Dead Horse Point (You may leave it as a big prepositional phrase, I'm not going to fight for this one too much).

Otherwise that's it. RockManQ ^(talk) 04:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All changed around.Mitch32^(UP) 14:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Are the sources good?

I only have one problem; I can't seem to find the article about the highway in ref 8. I assume since it's been awhile that it's been archived. A search should find it.

Found an archived abstract of the article, linked that for now.Mitch32^(UP) 14:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing Comments

I'm going to go ahead and put these here for the sake of it.

Ok, now that you're done with all above stuff we'll get to here.

A good article is—

Well-written: Pass
(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]
Verifiable with no original research: Pass
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;^[2]

(b) 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);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage: Pass
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Pass; no POV found
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.^[4]; Pass; quite stable, not even sure if there's been one vandalism edit yet
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:^[5]; Pass
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Closing Comments

Overall, I think this article passes the GA Criteria set forth and I am proud to complete this nomination as a Pass

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
^ ^a ^b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.

[Harvard_and_cite.php-2] In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]