Talk:Ohio State Route 370/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Floydian (talk · contribs) 01:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The route description makes no mention of the northern terminus. You should also mention and cite the length in the prose of the RD, as right now it only appears in the Lead and Infobox.
    I have added the length and a statement regarding the northern terminus to this section. DanTheMan474 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Ref 3 needs the PDF format indicated.
    A PDF format notation has been added to the reference. DanTheMan474 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Has anything happened since the 1940s? If there is such a great gap between the last upgrade and now, you should specify that the route has remain unchanged since then. It also puffs up the history another sentence.
    I have added a sentence regarding no changes in the highway's history since the 1940s. DanTheMan474 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
    Have you looked through Flickr to see if Doug Kerr has any photos of this route to help illustrate the article? If there are none then that is unfortunate but not a GA criterion
    Neither Doug Kerr nor I have any photos pertaining to OH 370. DanTheMan474 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    Looks good overall. I'm placing the review on hold to allow for changes/comments. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Everything looks good now. I can't find anything else to be picky about, so for me that qualifies the article for some shiny green bling. Passed! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)