Talk:Texas Recreational Road 11

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Texas Recreational Road 11/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk · contribs) 23:04, 26 June 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

Major junctions

• No issues

References

• No issues

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have concluded that this article meets the good article criteria. Keep up the good work! Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Texas Recreational Road 11/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Scott5114 (talk · contribs) 22:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Some preliminary comments, before I start on the GA checklist...

• The article needs a WP:USRD/MTF-standard map in the infobox. If such a map hasn't been requested, put in a request—it should be simple to fulfill since there is already a KML file.

• I have requested a map, but I can't guarantee that one will be made any time soon.

• The map that is in the article is useless. It just shows two perpendicular lines with no context to show where or what it's depicting, or even that it's a map. It should be removed.

• I have removed it.

• The AADT information is irrelevant since it's data for FM 1929, not RR 11. Much of this wouldn't be germane to the article anyway; explaining who TxDOT is and why they measure AADT is beyond the scope of the article. Most of this paragraph should be removed.

• Cut everything but the NHS stuff.

• a boat-launch ramp of the coast of the lake - on the coast of the lake?

• Fixed. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• More later. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:55, 27 May 2013 (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):

   Might want to consider splitting the lead into two paragraphs (one for the r/d and one for the history). The history needs to split into two or more paragraphs. This can be kind of tricky with history sections, but a good idea is to put a paragraph break where a large period of time passes between changes.

   I split the history after the designation of FM 2134, which I believe is reasonable.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See comments about the AADT info above.

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

   See comments about the map above.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold until the above issues are addressed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

   I have attempted to address all of your concerns. Thanks for the review, it was looking like I would have a second Cooper, Texas–length waiting period. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

   Passed. Congrats on your GA (again). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)