Talk:Utah State Route 101/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Some minor MOS breaches with missing non-breaking spaces between numbers and units in measurements that were just fixed.

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):

   A photo would be nice, but not required. The same goes for a map.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The paragraph in the History section on the car accident isn't really needed, IMHO. You might want to remove since it isn't very notable. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)