Talk:U.S. Route 59 in Oklahoma/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 12:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to this later today or tomorrow. Imzadi 1979 → 12:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

DABs and ELs look good.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I have just two prose comments listed below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I'd like to see more photos, but that doesn't impact the listing of the article. The map should have a caption though, I think.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
There's just a pair of comments that are possibly more like personal writing preferences. Imzadi 1979 → 02:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

Constructions like "US-59 / 270 head" seem awkward, because I read that as a single highway with a combined name. If it were "US-59 and US-70 head" that would work to me, but otherwise that's one name, so a singular subject.
"interchanging" as a verb doesn't work right, because it the traditional definition of the verb, the two highways would be changing places. I'd stick to something like "meets" or even "junctions".
- I have addressed both of these concerns. You may want to double-check that I didn't miss any of the awkward slashed constructions, however. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - And listed. Imzadi 1979 → 02:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]