Talk:Delaware Route 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDelaware Route 11 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 3, 2012Good article nomineeListed

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Delaware Route 11/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 10:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've read this article and will review it shortly. It is well written. MathewTownsend (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
review

Basically the article is fine but some of the prose could be clarified.

  • "DE 11 was created by 1936 on a road taken over by the state by 1931." - can this be clearer?
  • "DE 11 begins at the Maryland border in western Kent County, where MD 302 continues to the west towards Templeville, Maryland" - so here the road split? MD 302 goes west, and DE 11 heads northeast?
  • The road that carries DE 11 crosses the border into Maryland and the route becomes MD 302. Clarified. Dough4872 22:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the center of Hartly, the route crosses DE 44. After DE 44, the road heads north before curving northeast and leaving Hartly." - something like "In the center of Hartly, the route crosses DE 44, then heads north before it curves northeast and leaves Hartly."?
  • "and passing a few homes." - passes a few homes
  • "before coming to " - it comes to an end
  • In the "History" section: "by 1920", "by 1931", "by 1936" - its a little clumsy - perhaps there's no other way to phrase this.
  • That's the best way to phrase it as the changes happened by those dates. Dough4872 22:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are suggestions to improve the prose. I made an edit.[1]

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. Dough4872 22:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply
  • Great! I just made one more little edit for the sake of prose.[2]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Provides references to all sources:
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    B. Remains focused:
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  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:
    Pass!