Jump to content

Talk:Ohio State Route 364

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleOhio State Route 364 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 16, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
April 3, 2017Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ohio State Route 364/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cameron11598 (talk · contribs) 19:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming, will review later. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • "and became completely paved by 1940." - that part of the sentence is grammatically incorrect.
  • "In Auglaize County, a gravel road from SR 219 to SR 32 was built by 1932," - this could probably be phrased better
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. no problems here --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Article is well sourced. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). no issues that I can see --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research. No Original Research --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No Copy Right Violations detected --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. No issues here --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No issues here --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Written with a WP:NPOV --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit wars, seems stable --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. image has correct license info. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. the image's caption could use some expanding. As it is the caption doesn't provide any context on why the image is relevant to the article. For reference I'm revering to "Grand Lake St. Marys State Park"--Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. all issues have been fixed so I'm going to pass this. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron11598: All issues fixed.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]