Talk:U.S. Route 62 in Oklahoma

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 62 in Oklahoma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I do not believe it is well-written. I count the word then 20 times. The route description became difficult to read after so many it then. I believe it follows the MOS, somewhat, but I count a few redirects in the Wikilinks.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Large portions of the route description are unsourced. What is sourced in the route description is linked to a map. I find that as a problem, as it could be seen as slightly OR. I don't know what the policy is for other routes, but I personally don't approve of it. I'd rather have a source that defines the route, and use that, than using a map. However, the info on the re-routing seems decent, and well-sourced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   First, the route description seems far too long. More importantly, though, there is little in the article outside of the route description. Are there any traffic counts available? When was the original route constructed? I'd like a real history section, with more than just the re-routing. Additionally, I'm interested in why the route was re-routed.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Sorry, but I do not believe this article is good. Good luck improving the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Working on correcting this, but many of these concerns are not actionable. It was likely previously constructed and the designation simply displaced several existing state highways. Why the highway was rerouted is impossible to tell; it's probably just ODOT determining a more efficient routing and adjusting the highway accordingly. Anything about this wouldn't be sourceable anyhow, as ODOT just tells when they reroute stuff, never why. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 62 in Oklahoma/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose is much better from previous review.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The RD needs citations to a current state map or Google Maps.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The history could be expanded with some of the reroutings due to the Interstates at the very least. Are there old ODOT maps that show pavement conditions. MDOT maps showed what sections were gravel, so at least you could note when it was completely hard-surfaced in the history.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm placing this article on hold for 7 days to see if the concerns above can be rectified.Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   Passing article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)