Talk:New York State Route 323/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose isn't too good. I count nine variations of "intersected" in 10 sentences of the RD. Some awkward wording, as wel.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Ref 5 isn't a RS.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   More info would never hurt.

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):

   No images, but for GA's sake, the infobox map is enough.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This new review process stinks, but that's besides the point. There are some prose issues which need to be resolved, so I've placed the article on-hold. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, looks better. Passses GA. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)