Talk:Utah State Route 68/GA1
GA Review
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- The route description still reads a bit dry, like a set of turn-by-turn instructions from Google Maps - should probably get a little more descriptive and natural before A/FA. However, it is thorough. Any other thoughts?
- I hope you don't mind giving a response to these questions, Ad. Anyway, you are right, I'm not the best descriptive writer, though Finetooth did improve the RD considerably. If anyone knows how to put some zing into the wording or something, that would be appreciated
- The route description still reads a bit dry, like a set of turn-by-turn instructions from Google Maps - should probably get a little more descriptive and natural before A/FA. However, it is thorough. Any other thoughts?
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Why isn't it broad in coverage?
- Because I'm a retard and forgot to set the checkbox. :-P
- Why isn't it broad in coverage?
- a (major aspects):
- 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):
- Personally, I think the one image will get it through GA, but it probably needs more for A and FA.
- True, but right now the length of the article (and the infobox butting in) only supports one. Anyway, images aren't even required for GA so this is definitely better than nothing :) CL — 06:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I think the one image will get it through GA, but it probably needs more for A and FA.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Good article overall. I can't find any glaring problems, but I'd like to grab a second opinion on the RD before I give the final thumbs-up. This is my first GA-review, and I'm still trying to feel out the differences between a GA article and a B article. DeFaultRyan (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- The route description section seems fine in my opinion; I've seen other GA's with similar Route Descriptions. I think the article should pass, but of course I'm not the reviewer. Hope this second opinion helped. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 18:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Works for me. Perhaps it will get dinged at A or FA review, but I'll put the GA through for now. Thanks for the second opinion. DeFaultRyan (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)