Talk:Ohio State Route 703

Ohio State Route 703 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.
Review: April 10, 2017. (Reviewed version).

U.S. Roads: State highways / Ohio Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	Ohio
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ohio State Route 703/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 15:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
"...and its eastern terminus at an intersection with SR 29, SR 66, and the southern terminus of SR 116 in St. Mary's" Suggest reorder to parallel first half of sentence: "...and its eastern terminus is in St. Mary's at an intersection with..."

"...in more of a north-south fashion toward its western end between Celina and Montezuma. However, the route is primarily an east-west highway." Suggest separating the first part from the preceding sentence and combining with the second part, such as "the route is mainly an east-west highway, although the section between Celina and Montezuma travels in a more north-south fashion." This puts the main idea first and removes primarily adjective that was used nearby.
I think I have fixed the above issues.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 19:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Route description
"No portion of this highway is included within the National Highway System (NHS).[3] The NHS is a network of routes deemed to be most important for the economy, mobility and defense of the nation.[4]" I think these two sentences could be combined for better flow. Two options that come to mind are "...within the National Highway System (NHS) which is a network..." and "No portion of this highway is included in the network of routes deemed to be most important for the economy, mobility and defense of the nation known as the National Highway System (NHS)." I'll let you choose which one you think is best, or you can go with your own idea.

"as many as 16,775 vehicles traveling east of Lake Shore Drive, and as few as 1,826 vehicles traveling southeast of It's It Road." I assume these are the busiest/least busy intersections? The prose should specify why these two were picked. It would also be helpful to describe where in the route they fall. It may be necessary to split the material into two sentences, such as "The busiest point in the route according to 2016 data was east of Lake Shore Drive in Celina, where the AADT was 16,775 vehicles. The least busy point was southeast of It's It Road, where..." Other formats that include the information are also ok.
Changed as specified.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 19:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History
no concern

Major intersections
no concern

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
structure adheres to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concerns

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:
no concerns

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig's best match is 2%. No concern.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
I'm not familiar with the subject, but nothing obvious has been omitted. The sections mentioned in the MOS linked above appear complete.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Recent improvement but no signs of edit warring or vandalism
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
rationales provided

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
images are relevant, captions are suitable.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass pending minor changes mentioned above.
@Argento Surfer: I have fixed the issues mentioned above.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 19:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. Everything looks good. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]