Talk:Missouri Route 101

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Vermont in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Missouri Route 101/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vermont (talk · contribs) 10:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

edit
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

edit
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Good prose.   Pass
    (b) (MoS) Follows MoS   Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) All claims referenced.   Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) All reliable sources, mostly government.   Pass
    (c) (original research) No original research.   Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Not a copyvio   Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) '   Pass
    (b) (focused) '   Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Neutral.   Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here.   Undetermined
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) No images.   Neutral
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) No images   Neutral

Result

edit
Result Notes
  Pass The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

edit

Please add any related discussion here.

It would benefit from image(s). There's not much text, being that it's a road and not well-written about, but it's awfully short for a GA. An image would supplement this. Vermont | reply here 11:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Additional notes

edit
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.