Talk:California State Route 177/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TheWombatGuru (talk · contribs) 00:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   In the route description 5 of 8 sentences start with SR 177. TheWombatGuru (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

   Fixed. --Rschen7754 00:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   The $389,000 claim, should something be added about what that's worth today; Should interchange be added to notes? TheWombatGuru (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

   Done the first, not sure what is meant by the second. --Rschen7754 00:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

   If the route isn't part of NHS, should it still be explained what it is? Also, could the NHS abbreviation be added, don't know if that would enhance it. TheWombatGuru (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

   It's generally considered as a significant enough detail. As far as the abbreviation, it's not used elsewhere in the article so it would be a bit superfluous. --Rschen7754 00:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   It seems well written again, if the points I addressed are (if they should be) fixed, it may be passed. TheWombatGuru (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

   Passed.