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

Reviewer: --- Dough 48 72 21:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS):

   The route description is tagged for copy editing and the history has awkward sentences such as "The routing, established in 1963, has not been altered since then".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Most of the article is is need of references. In addition, reference 3 is a self published source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Some more information could be added to the article.

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):

   A picture of the road would be nice to have in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

From looking at the article, it appears to have several major issues regarding prose quality and sourcing. Therefore, I will have to fail it. The article may be renominated when these major issues are addressed. --- Dough 48 72 21:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply