Talk:Ohio State Route 372

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ohio State Route 372/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Thank you for nominating this article. Please fix the ambiguous Franklin Township, Ohio link. No invalid external links.

This is a template issue. It is being addressed accordingly by the template creator. DanTheMan474 (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Are we sure that Franklin Township is a "municipality"? If not, just say "Franklin Township in Rock County, Ohio."

   A township is a municipality, as in a unit of government. However, I have re-worded it. Check. DanTheMan474 (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   "It would not be until 1958 before the state route was paved."->"The state route was finally paved in 1958."

   Check. DanTheMan474 (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   "is not inclusive as a part of the National Highway System"->"is not a part of the National Highway System"

   Check. DanTheMan474 (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   "The roadway continues eastward from this point as CR 199.[4]" - but fn 4 shows it designated as OH 372 inside the park, not CR 199.

   I could not find SR-372 listed in Ref 5, the Traffic Survey Report.

   Sorry, there was an incorrect link there for [5]. This has been fixed. See page 4 for the OH 372 listing. As for [4], please bear in mind the labels on Yahoo Maps are not always accurate. Thus, it should not be treated as being in conflict with the official source, the ODOT SLD. DanTheMan474 (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   I agree with you that the Yahoo Map is wrong and mistakenly shows CR 199 as OH 372. However, that leaves us needing a reference for the fact that the continues within the park as CR 199. Racepacket (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   I have added a citation for the SLD in the RD for clarification of its endpoint, and identify the roadway continuing east as Stoney Creek Road, not CR 199. However, I would like to cite WP:WIAGA criterion 2b: "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons‹science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines." The fact expressed here is not a quote, is not a statistic, is not a published opinion, is not counter-intuitive, and is not a controversial statement. Therefore, GA criteria does not require it to be cited. DanTheMan474 (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   I understand your point. Saying "Yahoo Maps is wrong" is true, but counter-intuitive. I think that route numbers are like a statistic. If I said that the speed limit was 40 mph, that would be a specific statistic requiring a reference. So when I say that the route's number is CR 199, that probably should be footnoted as well. If you wish, we can ask for a second opinion, but I think that we should be able to find a map showing its CR 199. How did you find out that it was CR 199? Racepacket (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   So, your position is to remove all references to CR 199 and to rely upon Ref #3 to support 372 ending at the park border? I guess you can't find your original source for CR 199, so we will leave it at that. However, Bing Maps shows CR 199 http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&cp=39.126111~-82.983056&style=r&lvl=12&sp=Point.39.126111_-82.983056_Waverly,%20Ohio___ but implies that the main route follows Park Rd 4. Racepacket (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   A highway designation is not a statistic. It is a name in numerical format. Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with that contention. Oh, and the CR 199 detail has been removed from the article now, mooting the point. Imzadi 1979 → 04:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   I thought that we had an agreement to steer clear of each other on GAs. Racepacket (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   I do take an interest in Ohio's articles. I edit in that state occasionally as well as helping Dan with feedback and advice on various articles, including a few he's been nominating at GAN lately. Imzadi 1979 → 04:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Any construction planned?

   No, there is no construction planned for this route. DanTheMan474 (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article represents significant work by its author. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

One last item and then we are done. Racepacket (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not worth pursuing, so I will pass the article. Racepacket (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)