I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of July 3, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: The article is well written with correct spelling and proper grammar usage. The red-link to Cedar Creek Park should probably be removed if the park is not notable however.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Article is factually accurate.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, covers all major points including the history and description of the road.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Written in an neutral point of view.
- 5. Article stability? Very stable. No edit wars and little vandalism.
- 6. Images?: Contains diagrams and maps which is enough for the article although an actual picture of the route may be helpful.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status.
— --Hdt83 Chat 19:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pennsylvania Route 222/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
GA Sweeps: Kept
edit
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
