Missouri Route 162 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 4, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Missouri Route 162/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 03:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written:
- Any info on when the diamond interchange at I-55 was built? And any cost there?
- Cost added.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 06:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- "and its section from Clarkton to Gideon was paved one year later." -- Any cost on this?
- As with Route 164, I can't immediately tell if the first sentence in the route description is a traffic count for this route. Is it, and if not can that number be found?
- Fixed.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 06:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Finally, perhaps would be good to include if there are any landmarks or notable businesses on this one, or if it's an all residential road. I get it's a rural place but the information seems a bit basic as is now.
- Any info on when the diamond interchange at I-55 was built? And any cost there?
- It is factually accurate and verifiable:
- Pass Sources are largely maps, but not spotting any holes in citing. —Ed!(talk) 03:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is broad in its coverage:
- Pass No problems there.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy:
- Pass No problems there.
- It is stable:
- Pass No problems there.
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
- No images here, technically possible but not feasible unless we had someone on WP living nearby, which isn't likely. Any chance for a map?
- Other:
- Dup links, dab links, external links and copyvio tools all showing no problems.
- Source spotcheck Ref 7 and Ref 14 are appropriately referenced to the content in the article.
On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!(talk) 03:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Good work on this one! Passing for GA. —Ed!(talk) 20:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)