Talk:U.S. Route 64 in Oklahoma/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Fredddie (talk · contribs) 16:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article some time in the next 24 hours. –Fredddie™ 16:55, 5 August 2014 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   MOS:FRAC urges consistent usage of fractions or decimals. Since all of the fractions seem to be cited to the county section maps, I'd guess that they're approximate distances. If I were you, I'd try to convert the decimals to fractions. for consistency's sake.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I would like to see more non-ODOT references

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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just need to get some consistency in the decimals and fractions. I'm not going to hold up the GAN for more non-ODOT references, but I wouldn't take it past GAN without them. –Fredddie™ 01:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fredddie: the decimals should be eliminated. Let me know if you see anything I missed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine. Passing. –Fredddie™ 01:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)