Talk:Ohio State Route 778

Latest comment: 9 months ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic GA Reassessment
Good articleOhio State Route 778 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 24, 2013Good article nomineeListed
January 31, 2024Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ohio State Route 778/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 01:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
  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):  
    An image of the road would be nice, but not required.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Short article, but meets all the criteria, therefore I will pass. Dough4872 01:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Has a uncited sentence saying "Has not changed since 1942" and uses Google Maps as a source. has 200 words only GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The first concern is not correct; the third one is not part of the GA criteria; the second one has been shown to be allowable in a discussion on another simultaneous GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I striked the first part. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.