Talk:Interstate 140 (North Carolina)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * Good lead section provides an overview of the article's contents. Made some minor changes to tighten up but no substantial or flagrant errors.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Sourcing quality is solid; there is one dead link, as a note, but it is in a full citation and thus verifiable. Healthy amount of citations to local newspapers, some not available online; Google seems to be acceptable as well per WP:USRD standard. Earwig mostly catches official names (e.g. "Battle Royal Natural Heritage Site").
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article covers the entire scope of the page evenly, with appropriate detail for an article of this type.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Just some quickly reverted IP edits, nothing too large.
 * 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):
 * The article has four associated images, all properly captioned and all under a CC license. There is also a Wikimedia Commons category linked at the end, containing several additional photos. They are well used alongside relevant sections of the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I don't see any issues here, and I looked hard. This is being passed.
 * I don't see any issues here, and I looked hard. This is being passed.