Talk:Interstate 496/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk · contribs) 20:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):
   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):
   b (citations to reliable sources):
   c (OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Infobox

• No issues

Lead

• No issues

Route description

• No issues

History

• No issues

Exit list

• No issues

Related trunkline

• No issues

References

• No issues

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have concluded that it meets the good article criteria at this time. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 22:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)