Talk:California State Route 56/GA1

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

Reviewer: ---Dough4872 21:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The route description is tagged for copy editing and the history has awkward sentences such as "The routing, established in 1963, has not been altered since then".
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Most of the article is is need of references. In addition, reference 3 is a self published source.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Some more information could be added to the article.
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * A picture of the road would be nice to have in the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * From looking at the article, it appears to have several major issues regarding prose quality and sourcing. Therefore, I will have to fail it. The article may be renominated when these major issues are addressed. ---Dough4872 21:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * From looking at the article, it appears to have several major issues regarding prose quality and sourcing. Therefore, I will have to fail it. The article may be renominated when these major issues are addressed. ---Dough4872 21:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)