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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 17:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, MatthewAnderson707, I'll take this one, too. Kingsif (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Copyvio check looks clear, a reasonably high percentage, but mostly from proper nouns/repetition of Dixie Overland Highway
• History and talk are stable
• Sources look good and everything appears to be cited inline
• Images good and commons licensed
• The lead might be a bit short, but seems to summarize the article fine
• In US 80 enters Uniontown reducing to two lanes in width, there should be a comma after "Uniontown"
• No source for describing as the infamous Edmund Pettus Bridge - I'm also not sure "infamous" is needed at all in the route description part.
  • Perhaps it is better to separate out the march information from the Route description completely, unless some of the sites on the march are important intersections/marked landmarks? (History, not the route) In the history section devoted to the marches, a subsection on the march route could be added?
  • In general, needs consistency as to whether march(es) is spelled with a capital M or not.
• Is it possible to break the Old alignments section up into multiple paragraphs, it just looks too heavy to read as such a large chunk by itself.
• In the same eastern and western terminus - terminus is singular, 'terminals' should be used
• Some wikilinks (including e.g. Cuba) don't appear at their first instance. Possibly review for duplicate links, because I think Uniontown, Edmund Pettus Bridge, appear more than once with a link.
• Needs a comma after highway from California to Texas
• In to form the final part of the forming association, I think a better adjective than 'forming' can be used - how about 'nascent'?
• No source for the popularity of which did provide US 66 with serious competition, which gives neutrality concern. Who says this?
• The Future section might want to be checked for both current accuracy and for phrasing re. upcoming and recent
• Intersections table fine

•  On hold A few concerns, should be detailed in comments. Kingsif (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Thanks for the feedback. Would it be alright if I deleted or removed the questionable sentences lacking proper sourcing? — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine. Kingsif (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewAnderson707: It's been a week, were you thinking of working on this? Kingsif (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Yes. I was thinking about how best to approach the corrections.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 03:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewAnderson707: I see some edits have been made, but nothing for almost a week now, too - what are you thinking about splitting the route description and information about the march? Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I was actually going to get on making more corrections today. Honestly, the last week, I've been very absent minded. I'm sorry for that, I'll try to be more diligent with this from now on. But yes, I have been thinking about that to some extent as well.Honestly, I'm not sure how I would carry that out. Any suggestions? — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 23:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewAnderson707:You could draft it in a sandbox if you don't want to do it directly in the article or if you think it would take a while? Kingsif (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @MatthewAnderson707: I've taken a look and the article is looking better - is there any more left to do? Kingsif (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I'll take a look at it and let you know.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 02:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewAnderson707: It's been a week - if there's nothing left to address, I can review the changes for this? Kingsif (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I actually came across a last minute thing. I still haven't broken down the old allignments section into separate paragraphs.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 09:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewAnderson707: Weekly reminder :) I can continue the review now, but if you haven't had time to work on it, perhaps it should be closed so you improve it at your own pace? Let me know Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Thanks. That might not be a bad idea. Apologies for taking so long.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 23:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewAnderson707: No problem, close without prejudice for when you have more time. Always nice to review your noms :) Kingsif (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]