Talk:Texas State Highway 151/GA

GA review

On first read through, there seems to be substantial overlinking - each item should only be linked once. There are several examples, eg frontage road. Also can't see a source for paras 2-4 of history. I'll comment in more detail later Jimfbleak (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that reference two covers all that. --NE2 13:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, is there something in that section of text that you couldn't find in the source? --Holderca1 ^talk 14:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, there aren't that many paragraphs in the history section. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant sentences. --NE2 13:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as linking goes I was following this from the MoS: "Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection." from MOS:LINK#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did mean sentences. The overlinking seems a bit odd to me, but you've justified it from MOS, so fine. Ref 2 just says the road is opening. If the rest of the information is in the pay-to-read full document, it's not exactly transparent, and I'm not sure that I'm happy about the reference being effectively a commercial site. It shouldn't be necessary to pay to verify data, surely the information must be in the public domain somewhere? Jimfbleak (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a pay-to-read site. I think I had to register, but it's free. I haven't been able to find that particular information elsewhere. The San Antonio Express-News charges to view archived articles. I suppose I could change it to an offline source and cite it that way. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all links to the site that requires registration. --Holderca1 ^talk 04:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The new refs 2 and 3 have a "retrieved" date. but no url. I think you either need to add a url (which from what you said seems unlikely), or lose the retrieved date. Once that is sorted, i can't see any other issues. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Holderca1 ^talk 11:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: