Talk:Texas Recreational Road 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Texas Recreational Road 2 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.
WikiProject U.S. Roads (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
U.S. Roads WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Topics
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
USRD KML.svg
This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.
This article has been identified as having the following issues:
USRD MTF no.svg
This article needs a map. Please work with the maps task force to create and add a map to this article.
WikiProject United States / Texas (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (marked as Low-importance).
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Texas Recreational Road 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 00:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Quality of the article is good.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Article complies with MoS.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Good.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    References support all statements included in the article.
    C. No original research:
    No original research found.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    All major aspects of the topic have been covered.
    B. Focused:
    Article remains focused throughout.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    No bias found.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Article is stable.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Image is tagged correctly.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Appropriate image is used with a suitable caption.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Nothing needs to be fixed on the nominators part. I have fixed the minor issues within the the article.--Dom497 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Texas Recreational Road 2/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Neonblak (talk · contribs) 11:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC) I will be reviewing this nomination. Seems to have been delisted, although there is no information posted as to why.Neonblak talk - 11:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Review There are no disambiguation, or external link issues. The photos used appear to be compliant with WP guidelines. All links appear to be formatted correctly. I saw only very minor issues, they are listed below:

  • Lead

1. Since you already abreviated Recreational Road 2 to RE2, no need to revert back to it full name in the last line of the lead.

  • History

1. " By 1961, the road had been improved to a metal surface..." - I would change "the road" to "it", since the word combo was used in the previous sentence, reads slightly clunky.

Thats it, that's all I saw, so I will put this on hold, and look forward to passing this article.Neonblak talk - 11:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed your concerns. Thanks for the review. Its been forever since I nominated it. And just for clarification, the first time this was listed it was about 4 kb in length. After a long discussion, it was merged. After some research, I was able to expand it out into its current appearance. Thanks again for the review, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 18:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)