Talk:Ohio Department of Transportation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ohio Portal Ohio Department of Transportation is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. 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 current discussions.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.

	Ohio Department of Transportation has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 6, 2007 Good article nominee Listed November 18, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Good article

	This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to 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.
Topics	Ohio State Highways
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article is a current selected article candidate on the Ohio portal. A selected article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work related to Ohio. Please feel free to leave comments.

[edit] GA failed

Don't take it personally, it's commendable in many ways, but it was actually pretty easy to see that this article did not meet the criteria. For one very good reason: far too few references. For example, the first two sections under the history, the origins and Interstate highway sections, refer to very specific events, very specific data points and make claims based on those assertions, such as:

By 1947 the Ohio Department of Highways was constructing new roads at the quickest pace in their history, with 422 contracts awarded, $38 million spent on new construction, and $4 million on maintenance. This marked the highest amount spent on road construction by Ohio than all years previous.

Yet without a single footnote.

It also doesn't give us information it should. We read about the Cleveland Innerbelt Plan, and that it's been completed and will be implemented, yet don't know what it's going to do. Will the interstates in question just be rebuilt? I rather doubt that level of planning wouldn't have led to changes (and I used to live in the Cleveland area, so I know those roads were long complained of as outmoded). I shouldn't have to click on the link to the Veterans' Glass City Memorial Skyway to find out it's in the Toledo area, either.

Take a step back, address these issues and any other ones that come up. Then you can renominate it. Daniel Case 13:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of August 7, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Good prose, no errors in the text I can see although someone familer to American spelling ought to check it properly.

2. Factually accurate?: Official sources cited, no accuracy problems I can see.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major topics in approportae detail.

4. Neutral point of view?: Little content opposing official line, but considering the subject I can understand there may be little, and hard to find. An area for improvement.

5. Article stability? Mostly one editor, no edit wars or major instability.

6. Images?: Proper fair use followed where not a free image.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. - J Logan ^t: 16:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)