Talk:Pennsylvania Route 51/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article needs quite a bit of work before it is ready to be promoted. The main thing needed is consistency with other road articles. I passed Pennsylvania Route 663 yesterday, so it's a good example of what is needed. A few major things:

1. This article has no references in the prose. It should be fully referenced. For an example of what the referencing should looking like, see the article on route 663. Please make sure that only reliable sources are used. Members of the Roads WikiProject should be able to answer questions about that if you have any.
2. A "History" section is needed.
3. The "Communities along the route" section isn't needed, as the communities should be mentioned in the prose.
4. Likewise, the "See also" section isn't needed, as those roads are already mentioned and wikilinked above.
5. The lead section needs to fully summarize the article, so it will need to be lengthened once this other information is added.

I will place the nomination on hold to allow time for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have added this page to my watchlist. Please note that this should not be seen as a full list of what needs to be done for GA status, but rather a list to get things moving in the right direction. I will most likely have more suggestions later. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just of note, I suggest that the reviewer considers quick-failing this article. Per WP:USRD standards, an article cannot reach B-Class without a history section, much less GA. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am acting on the belief that WP:GAN should help improve articles. Quick-failing is definitely an option, but my hope is that the article can be improved over the next week to meet the standards for both USRD and GA. For this article, a history section is mandatory for a GA pass, so the nomination will be failed in one week if it has not been added. If that turns out to be the case, there is no harm done by giving an editor a chance. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

When I nominated this article, I was thinking of a different one that I didn't have time to nominate earlier. I didn't mean to do this one. However, I guess I'll try to fix it. I put a short history in and referenced the description already. Let me know what else I need to do. Deigo (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through the article again and done some copyediting, and a few things came up:

1. Is there a source for "PA 43 is expected to become longer north of PA 51."?
2. The article constantly repeats "PA 51 this, PA 51 that, PA 51 this..." I changed a few to "it" where it was obvious what was being discussed. If "Route 51" carries the same meaning, it would be great if several of the "PA 51"s could be changed over to improve the prose. Currently, the article is fairly dry, as the prose doesn't have a lot of variety.
3. Some description about what the road is like, what surrounds the road, a sentence about the Century III Mall, or any information of the sort (if available) would help make the article more interesting to read.
4. The citation used for the history section has plenty of information that hasn't been included. Some of it isn't particularly interesting, but it would be nice if a bit more could be added to make the article a little more interesting.
5. References 1 and 4 should be properly formatted, including a publisher, accessdate, url and title. See Wikipedia:Citation templates for the {{cite web}} template.
6. The lead section should be extended a bit. Could two or three more sentences be added to the paragraph?
7. Is it possible to get a map of the route, as I have found this to be one of the most helpful aspects of other road articles?

I hope this helps. Again, please feel free to get in touch and ask for clarification on any of this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just stopping by to see how things are going. I see that a source was added for the first concern on my list, which is great. A lot of the "PA 51"s have been changed over, and the article is much easier to look at. The "Beaver County" section still needs some work in this area. I think the article is pretty close, so I'm hoping the rest can be addressed. Don't hesitate to ask a member of the roads wikiproject for help if you need it, as the article has come a long way and I'd like to see it pass. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed Beaver County. I extended the lead paragraph some (do you want more?). I fixed the references. I can't do the map, but it isn't required for a good article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deigo (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Although the map is not required for GA status, I find the description of the road complicated. A map would help give clarity to the prose. User:25or6to4 and User:Stratosphere have worked on maps for GAs that I have recently promoted; it would be great if you could ask one or both to help out. The references haven't been fixed, as they are still missing important information. In addition, references 1 and 8 are the same and should be combined. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I added some more history. I think the references are finished. I requested a map. The lead section is pretty long now. Let me know SPECIFICALLY if I can do anything else. I think I got everything you said originally besides the map and spicing it up some, but I did try to make it more readable. This will become a good article if I have anything to do with it. Deigo (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Further review I went through and did a quick copyedit. The remaining issues are:

1. "North of Pittsburgh, PA 51 basically follows the route of I-76 (the Pennsylvania Turnpike)." - this sounds awkward with "basically" included. I'm also wondering if the sentence is necessary, as nothing about I-76 is mentioned later in the article.
2. "In the South Hills, Route 51 (Saw Mill Run Blvd.), along with US 19, is one of the major routes in and out of the city." - what city? According to the wikilink, South Hills doesn't seem to be a city (if it is, "the" should probably be dropped). Are you referring to Pittsburgh?
3. "It provides access to the Liberty Tunnels and bridge, the Fort Pitt Tunnel and bridge" - This seems awkward, as the reader has to check the wikilink to find out that "and bridge" refers to the Liberty Bridge. In reality, the easiest way to fix this might be to say "It provides access to several bridges and tunnels." The names are given later, and the lead only needs to be a summary anyway.
4. "confusing intersection" - "confusing" is a point of view word; it could be dropped altogether
5. "It also brought the cities of Clairton, Duquesne, McKeesport closer to Pittsburgh." - I'm assuming this isn't meant literally. Perhaps "It also reduced the driving distance to Pittsburgh from Clairton, Duquesne, McKeesport."?

The lack of a map won't prevent the article from passing, as you have requested that one be made. I will keep the nomination on hold. Please get in touch with any questions or comments. Thanks for your hard work on this article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the things you mentioned (I hope). I'm not exactly sure I fixed the "confusing intersection" part. I did change "confusing" to "notorious" since it is known for causing a lot of problems. You can get rid of that if you think it should go. Deigo (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I think this meets all of the GA criteria now, so I am promoting it. Thanks for all of your hard work. If you have a chance, it would be great if you could review an article in return to cut down on the backlog at WP:GAN. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)