Talk:St. Joseph Valley Parkway/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Admrboltz (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Just a couple of minor items to look at:
- Two references from the The Herald-Palladium should be tagged {{registration required}} if just a free registration and {{subscription required}} if paid.
- Portal links are missing.
- A map would be nice.
- Since the route is mostly in IN, I would suggest using the normal RJL templates, and not the MI specific ones.
I am passing this article. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)