Talk:Pennsylvania Route 232

Latest comment: 8 years ago by RSLitman in topic GA Review
Good articlePennsylvania Route 232 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
August 31, 2010Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pennsylvania Route 232/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 15:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I shall be reviewing this article. No one should have to wait two months for a GAN. :) ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 15:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Prose/MOS review

edit

Introduction

edit

Route description

edit

History

edit

Reference review

edit

Depth review

edit

Neutrality review

edit

Stability review

edit

Image review

edit

Final review

edit

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  10. (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. Dough4872 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations, I am passing as good article! ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

References

edit