Talk:Interstate 359

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 359/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –Grondemar 05:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've completed my review. I have a couple of concerns that need to be addressed before I can promote the article to GA status.

• I attempted to copyedit the first paragraph of the History section, but I'm not sure I understand its meaning. "The planning for I-359 commenced in 1961.[2] The highway was originally intended to be the only access provided to Interstate 59 from the city of Tuscaloosa. Local planners and elected officials stated the need for additional access to I-59 in order to serve more local traffic.[9] Additionally, the route as originally envisioned was to have has no exits for the duration of its route between its southern terminus at I-59 and its northern terminus at 15th Street in downtown Tuscaloosa." It seems like these sentences are out of order. If I-359 was intended to be the only access to I-59, why were elected officials demanding additional access? Shouldn't they have been demanding any access? Is the additional access claim related to the fact that the highway orginally wasn't going to have any exits, and then they changed their mind due to the demands? When and why did they decide to add the exit for the University of Alabama anyway?
  • I have tweaked the paragraphs, and added clarifications to address your concerns. Please let me know if further clarifications are needed.

• The Exit list should have mileage information for each of the exits.
  • Mileage information added per ALDOT map.

Thanks for the copyedit and the prompt review, as it is appreciated. Please let me know if anything else needs to be amended. Cheers! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything else looks fine to me.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

   This article will be on hold for seven days waiting for the above concerns to be addressed.

Thanks. –Grondemar 15:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks excellent, thanks for the prompt response! I'm passing this GAN. Congratulations! –Grondemar 01:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)