Talk:U.S. Route 75 in Iowa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 13:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Images

Both are fine.

U.S. Highway origins

"Support for the system was unanimous in Iowa..." Unanimous? That's a bold claim.
That's my only comment, really. This is well-written and nearly ready for promotion. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The unanimous claim comes from page 5 of the Service Bulletin which is Ref 1. Unfortunately, it's offline, but I have a scan of it, so I will type out the relevant paragraph:

"Approval of the U.S. system by the states has been practically unanimous. At the recent poll of the states on the question of final adoption [of the creation of the U.S. Highway System] there was but one dissenting vote coming from an eastern state and this on the ground that that state had not been given a mileage proportional to the amount of traffic on its heavy routes, between large population centers.

The square brackets enclose my comment that tries to add context. If you like, I could change it to "Support for the system was unanimous among Iowa transportation officials..." since that was really the who referred to in that paragraph. I'm glad you liked the article. –Fredddie ™ 21:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that would clear things up a bit. I'll promote the article now, just make that correction when you get a change. Nice work! --Coemgenus (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]