Talk:California State Route 78/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose reads well. One suggestion I'd like to see is using the full name of a type of highway on first mention followed by the standard abbreviation in parentheses. Then you can abbreviate all other highways of that same type after that. The boldface for the memorial designations in the fourth paragraph of the route description is a minor MOS breach.

   Second part taken care of. Re first part - does that include the lead? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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):

   I'd like to see some photos, but they aren't required.

   I'll try to pick some up when I go home in a few weeks. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just a few minor copy edits, and it's passable. Good job. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

   Issues addressed and passing. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)