Talk:California State Route 56/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ---Dough4872 21:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- The route description is tagged for copy editing and the history has awkward sentences such as "The routing, established in 1963, has not been altered since then".
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Most of the article is is need of references. In addition, reference 3 is a self published source.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Some more information could be added to the article.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- A picture of the road would be nice to have in the article.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- From looking at the article, it appears to have several major issues regarding prose quality and sourcing. Therefore, I will have to fail it. The article may be renominated when these major issues are addressed. ---Dough4872 21:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)