Talk:California State Route 57/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –Fredddie™ 23:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A couple suggestions:

   • In the lead, "The portion of the Orange Freeway that remained unconstructed was not completed until the early 1970s." There is no previous mention of there being two unconnected sections. Clarity is never a bad thing.
   • I think the route description may flow better if the first paragraph of that section were at the end.
   • There is inconsistent usage of SR # and State Route #.
   • In the history, do you think "Route 19 until then connected..." would sound better as "Until then, Route 19 had connected..."?
   • Except for explaining route numbers and abbreviations, I think we can do without the sentences and phrases in parentheses. "(The portion northeast of Diamond Bar into Pomona soon became part of the planned Pomona Freeway, and the name of the remainder was changed to Orange Freeway.[19])" is the worst offender.

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):

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):

   Alt text wouldn't hurt, but it's not required.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nothing I suggested up top is critical enough to put this on hold. Good job. Pass. –Fredddie™ 23:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)