Talk:Business routes of U.S. Route 23 in Michigan/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 12:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * I'll get started on this today or tomorrow. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, after reviewing it, I have no real complaints about the article. It meets all of the GA standard. The only question that came up while reading it was: why was the Fenton portion given back to local control? the other two former segments make sense, since they were resigned as Business Loop I-75, but I was curious about why Fenton's segment was delisted. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * a search of MDOT's press release archive from 2006 on archive.org reveals no answer because they didn't issue a PR for the transfer. Looking through archived mailing list discussions from that time period involving an MDOT employee also reveals no answer on why that individual highway was decommissioned at that time. In short, I don't have an answer and not for lack of trying to locate one, even in sources I couldn't cite under our WP:RS rules.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. If it's not there, it's not there. I'm glad to promote this. Nice work. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)