Jump to content

Talk:New York State Route 474

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 19:58, 6 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articleNew York State Route 474 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 6, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Change of Intersection Template

[edit]

This article was changed to bring its intersection template to the NYint format. No other changes were made. It is important to verify, update and/or correct as necessary. Fwgoebel 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:New York State Route 474/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Recommend GA with a few suggestions. In my opinion, it meets the 6 criteria. Well written, factually accurate, broad in coverage, neutral, stable (VERY stable), illustrated if possible. Possible improvements which are optional, but improve it could include an image or a map. Also add "(NY 474)" the first time after New York Route 474 since NY 474 is an abbreviation. Any notable structures or places should be mentioned, if any. Chergles (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll try to learn what is supposed to be done. Chergles (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    barely
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


checklist is above Chergles (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion by me: This article passes though improvements can be made, as suggested by me. Chergles (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's clear you have no idea what you are doing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing GA --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]