Talk:Interstate 97/GA1

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 14:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll review this one over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:46, 9 April 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

 * Images
 * All look fine, appropriate use and licenses.


 * General points
 * The main text is all good. I worked hard to find something to fix, but came up empty--clearly, you've done this before!
 * The only think I might add, if it can be found, is an explanation of why there is an interstate highway that only goes through one state. I know it happens in at least one other case (I-99), but the average reader might find it odd. But that's not enough to stand in the way of promotion, so I'll pass this now anyway. Nice work! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)