Talk:U.S. Route 64 in Oklahoma/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Fredddie (talk · contribs) 16:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article some time in the next 24 hours. –Fredddie ™ 16:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
MOS:FRAC urges consistent usage of fractions or decimals. Since all of the fractions seem to be cited to the county section maps, I'd guess that they're approximate distances. If I were you, I'd try to convert the decimals to fractions. for consistency's sake.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I would like to see more non-ODOT references
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Just need to get some consistency in the decimals and fractions. I'm not going to hold up the GAN for more non-ODOT references, but I wouldn't take it past GAN without them. –Fredddie ™ 01:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: the decimals should be eliminated. Let me know if you see anything I missed. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]