Talk:Washington State Route 173/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 01:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll review this. I'll try to get to it tonight because I won't be on much tomorrow or Saturday. –TCN7JM 01:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Lead
- "(SR 173)" SR 173 should be bolded, but not the parentheses.
- "a 11.86-mile-long" a → an since the first syllable of "eleven" is a vowel sound.
Route description
- "The 2-lane street" Write out the number two.
- NHS info?
- Not part of NHS, so it doesn't need to be there.
History
- "The Brewster Bridge was completed in June 1928 as the roadway was first codified in 1931" I don't think as is the right word here. Maybe change it to and or with the route being codified in...
- Not once do you give the exact year for the rebuilding of the Brewster Bridge. Is it not available?
- Not available. 1976 is earliest ref referring to a rebuilt bridge.
References
- On second thought, you should probably shorten Refs 17 and 19 with hidden text
All other sections are fine.
Final verdict
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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 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):
- Overall: Just a few minor errors, and I can pass it. –TCN7JM 01:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Taken all suggestions and implemented them. SounderBruce 02:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- It would still be nice if you added in there that it isn't part of the NHS, but since that's mainly optional, I won't hold up the review for that small of an issue.
Congrats! –TCN7JM 02:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)