Talk:Borman Expressway

GA

This article is well written, it has a well written lead, and it's broad in its coverage. It also has reliable references from InDOT and citations throughout the article, therefore I'm passing the article. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 01:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but I don't care to find and follow the process to remove GA status, so I'll leave it. --NE2 03:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit short, but the road is only 12 miles long. It seems to be well cited and content complete. —Rob (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The writing is pretty choppy, and the reason for the renumbering is unsourced. The route description could definitely be expanded, and I have a hard time believing that's all that can be written about the history. --NE2 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

USRD GA audit

This article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed.

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Borman Expressway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   OK

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I added a cite for the flooding, as there was flooding in August 20007 as well, and measures are in place to alleviate the flooding this section could be expanded

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:

   I made some copy-eits and re-arranged the pictures to improve the format. Article keeps GA status. I recommend that a map is added to this article, but it is not a GA requirement. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources

There are two in use in this article. They need to be replaced. As high of esteem as we old various roadgeeks and their person websites, they are still self-published and fall outside of policy and the GA criteria. If not resolved in a reasonable time period, this article will have to be de-listed as a GA. Imzadi 1979 → 01:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thak you, Detcin (talk · contribs) for fixing this. Consider the issue resolved. Imzadi 1979 → 02:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)