Talk:Interstate 215 (Utah)/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Algorerhythms in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
Not bad, just a few minor things to fix
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- The history section is a bit unclear, especially the second sentence. It may need to be reworded to make it clearer.
- True. I'll attempt to get to that soon.
- Meh, I just fixed that sentence that was the most outstanding. I read over it but found no other clarity problems because I'm familiar with the route; what else would need to be fixed in that section? CL — 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Better. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Meh, I just fixed that sentence that was the most outstanding. I read over it but found no other clarity problems because I'm familiar with the route; what else would need to be fixed in that section? CL — 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- True. I'll attempt to get to that soon.
- The history section is a bit unclear, especially the second sentence. It may need to be reworded to make it clearer.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- In the route description section, are all the paragraphs referenced from Ref 3? If so, there should probably be a tag at the end of each of the paragraphs to make that clear. Also, Ref 7 might not be considered a reliable source.
- Ref 3 problem is fixed. As for Ref 7, previous GAs have passed with this source. Perhaps this doesn't change anything, but it's for the record
- In that case, I'm willing to pass the GA if you can remove the tag on Ref 7. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ref 3 problem is fixed. As for Ref 7, previous GAs have passed with this source. Perhaps this doesn't change anything, but it's for the record
- In the route description section, are all the paragraphs referenced from Ref 3? If so, there should probably be a tag at the end of each of the paragraphs to make that clear. Also, Ref 7 might not be considered a reliable source.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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 (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- On hold, awaiting changes Algorerhythms (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Passed, after changes made. - Algorerhythms (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- On hold, awaiting changes Algorerhythms (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
I appreciate the review. Not everything has been addressed but I'll try to get to it tomorrow or perhaps Wednesday. Thanks again - CL — 03:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)