Talk:Business routes of U.S. Route 31 in Michigan/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 17:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll get to this review soon. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- When I scan for dead links, 4 & 5 are tagged. They both seem to bring me to maps. Not the actual map, but a library profile. Still, these and all other references seem to check out.
- For some of the routes, underneath "Major intersections", you have claimed that the route lies entirely in one county. I believe but, you need a reference to back this up. Doesn't have to be separate; you can reuse one of the references you already supply.
- Other than that, I have no real complaints about the article. Very comprehensive, nice work. I see another similar article passed easily, this one should as well. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- @QatarStarsLeague: extra references added, and the only dead links are fixed. (Two older MDOT press releases have had their links go dead but are archived at archive.org.) Footnotes 4 and 5 are to paper maps, so there's no link to be dead. There is the OCLC link to WorldCat so that people can find a library housing a copy of those maps, same as all of the other paper maps, but that's the only external link on those two footnotes. Imzadi 1979 → 00:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The new references check out, and you added references for what I mentioned. Nice job, this one passes. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @QatarStarsLeague: extra references added, and the only dead links are fixed. (Two older MDOT press releases have had their links go dead but are archived at archive.org.) Footnotes 4 and 5 are to paper maps, so there's no link to be dead. There is the OCLC link to WorldCat so that people can find a library housing a copy of those maps, same as all of the other paper maps, but that's the only external link on those two footnotes. Imzadi 1979 → 00:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Other than that, I have no real complaints about the article. Very comprehensive, nice work. I see another similar article passed easily, this one should as well. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)