| Revision as of 07:50, 3 January 2011 editRacepacket (talk | contribs)16,693 edits on hold← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:53, 4 January 2011 edit undoRacepacket (talk | contribs)16,693 edits →GA Review: 2nd opinionNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| You can't avoid a content dispute by repeatedly "withdrawing" a GAN. The question outstanding is how to interpret the sources regarding plans to include I-73 in the 2011 Highway Bill, both in the lead paragraph and in the Future section. If you want a second opinion, please let me know. However, I have spent substantial time on this GA review and I think that we owe it to Misplaced Pages to sort this out. I am placing this on hold.] (]) 07:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | You can't avoid a content dispute by repeatedly "withdrawing" a GAN. The question outstanding is how to interpret the sources regarding plans to include I-73 in the 2011 Highway Bill, both in the lead paragraph and in the Future section. If you want a second opinion, please let me know. However, I have spent substantial time on this GA review and I think that we owe it to Misplaced Pages to sort this out. I am placing this on hold.] (]) 07:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ===Second Opinion Wanted=== | |||
| We want a second opinion on two very narrow questions: | |||
| 1) Should the sentence in the lead be changed from " Congress has designated this corridor as part of Interstate 73 (I-73), although neither state has plans at this time to complete the freeway." to " Congress has designated this corridor as part of Interstate 73 (I-73), although neither state is actively working on completing the freeway." | |||
| 2) In the Future Section, adding a sentence at the end saying, "Any future work remains subject to the availability of federal funding of I-73." | |||
| The sources relevant to these changes are: | |||
| *http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/10/09/1742860/lahood-dot-is-an-ally-for-i-73.html , *http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/13251657/association-votes-to-add-interstate-75-to-the-group?redirected=true *http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/13291027/lahood-arrives-in-pee-dee-for-important-i-73-talks | |||
| *http://www.i73.com/states_michigan.html | |||
| *http://www.i73.com/aboutus.html (Adrian, MI businessmen on Board of I-73 coalition) | |||
| *http://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr05.html - probably not a reliable source, but it concludes, "As of December 2001, the Interstate 73 freeway is on hold pending fund identification. In addition, the State of Ohio has also stopped its feasbility study for Interstate 73, leaving the freeway in doubt in these two states for the immediate term. Longer-term, Interstate 73 is a possibility, but it is certainly not definite." | |||
| We look forward to your advice. Thanks, ] (]) 16:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:53, 4 January 2011
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC) The proper approach is to request a second opinion if you disagree with the review, not to start a review. WP:IAR does not explain your conduct.
- Then I shall withdraw this review as well. Imzadi 1979 → 07:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You can't avoid a content dispute by repeatedly "withdrawing" a GAN. The question outstanding is how to interpret the sources regarding plans to include I-73 in the 2011 Highway Bill, both in the lead paragraph and in the Future section. If you want a second opinion, please let me know. However, I have spent substantial time on this GA review and I think that we owe it to Misplaced Pages to sort this out. I am placing this on hold.Racepacket (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Second Opinion Wanted
We want a second opinion on two very narrow questions: 1) Should the sentence in the lead be changed from " Congress has designated this corridor as part of Interstate 73 (I-73), although neither state has plans at this time to complete the freeway." to " Congress has designated this corridor as part of Interstate 73 (I-73), although neither state is actively working on completing the freeway."
2) In the Future Section, adding a sentence at the end saying, "Any future work remains subject to the availability of federal funding of I-73."
The sources relevant to these changes are:
- http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/10/09/1742860/lahood-dot-is-an-ally-for-i-73.html , *http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/13251657/association-votes-to-add-interstate-75-to-the-group?redirected=true *http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/13291027/lahood-arrives-in-pee-dee-for-important-i-73-talks
- http://www.i73.com/states_michigan.html
- http://www.i73.com/aboutus.html (Adrian, MI businessmen on Board of I-73 coalition)
- http://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr05.html - probably not a reliable source, but it concludes, "As of December 2001, the Interstate 73 freeway is on hold pending fund identification. In addition, the State of Ohio has also stopped its feasbility study for Interstate 73, leaving the freeway in doubt in these two states for the immediate term. Longer-term, Interstate 73 is a possibility, but it is certainly not definite."
We look forward to your advice. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)