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

Reviewer: Dough4872 ( talk · contribs) 01:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS):

   • The route description is written east-to-west. It should be flipped to the correct west-to-east order.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • Some of the references are missing accessdates.

   • This is not part of the GA criteria. -- Rs chen 7754 02:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • The route description should mention the physical surroundings. Does it pass mostly homes or businesses?
   • The establishment date should be added to the infobox.

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 will put the article on hold for a few fixes to be made. Dough 48 72 01:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I will now pass the article. Dough 48 72 02:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply