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

Reviewer: --- Dough 48 72 02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS):

   The route description seems very dry and repetitive, I-25 is used in almost every sentence. In addition, there are WP:MOSBOLD violations throughout the prose and many short one-sentence paragraphs.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   There are large areas of uncited information throughout the article.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Right now, the article appears to have major issues regarding the prose and sourcing, these issues should be addressed before taking the article GAN. Therefore, I will have to fail the article. The article may be renominated when these issues are taken care of. --- Dough 48 72 02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply