Talk:U.S. Route 64 in Oklahoma/GA1

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Fredddie in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Fredddie (talk · contribs) 16:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply


I will review this article some time in the next 24 hours. –Fredddie 16:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    MOS:FRAC urges consistent usage of fractions or decimals. Since all of the fractions seem to be cited to the county section maps, I'd guess that they're approximate distances. If I were you, I'd try to convert the decimals to fractions. for consistency's sake.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    I would like to see more non-ODOT references
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  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 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Just need to get some consistency in the decimals and fractions. I'm not going to hold up the GAN for more non-ODOT references, but I wouldn't take it past GAN without them. –Fredddie 01:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Fredddie: the decimals should be eliminated. Let me know if you see anything I missed. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Looks fine. Passing. –Fredddie 01:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply