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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   "This cancellation was reversed in late 1940." cite?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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:

   minor issue in 2a. -- Admrboltz ( talk) 04:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Reference #9 is the state map that shows 1) the redesignation/cancellation reversal and 2) the simultaneous extension north to Calumet. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 04:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

AGF'ing. Pass -- Admrboltz ( talk) 04:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply