Talk:M-62 (Michigan highway)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dough 48 72 03:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The paragraph about the traffic counts in the middle of the route description seems random. Perhaps mention all the traffic counts in a paragraph at the bottom of the route description.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused): c Fair representation without bias:
Some more details about the physical surroundings of the route should be added to the route description. Does it pass through farmland or woodland in rural areas?
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
An image of the road would be nice, but not required.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I am putting the article on hold for a couple fixes. Dough 48 72 03:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with the traffic counts. The RD starts at the southern end and moves north. When it hits the low traffic point, it pauses, explains AADT and mentions that the spot in question is the low AADT for the whole highway. Then it resumes describing the route. When it hits the high point, it mentions that AADT count and moves right back into describing the route again. This is fairly common on other highway articles that incorporate traffic counts, unless the whole route's AADT counts are being discussed, rather than the high- and low-points.
I expanded the "surroundings" mentions. Imzadi 1979 → 04:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will now pass the article. Dough 48 72 23:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]