 | Delaware Route 52 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Orphaned references in Delaware Route 52 edit
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Delaware Route 52's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "DelDOT":
- From List of numbered routes in Delaware: http://www.deldot.gov/information/pubs_forms/manuals/traffic_counts/2006/pdf/rpt_pgs1_38_rev.pdf DelDOT 2006 Traffic Count and Mileage Report
- From Interstate 95 in Delaware: http://www.deldot.gov/information/pubs_forms/manuals/traffic_counts/2006/pdf/rpt_pgs1_38_rev.pdf DelDOT 2006 Traffic Count and Mileage Report
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Delaware Route 52/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 18:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
Comments edit
Other then one minor issue that I fixed, nothing needs to be fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)