Talk:M-78 (Michigan highway)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 12:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this nomination - I don't have much experience reviewing the GANs, so I may need some time to study all relevant info. I'll do the review as carefully as possible though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

All GA criteria are met. To be honest, I expected a high-quality article and I was not let down in my expectations. I regret there's not an image to illustrate the article beyond the route map and none are to be found at the Commons. Since this creates a situation conforming to note 7 of the WP:WIAGA, absence of images (apart from the map) is not an obstacle to GA promotion. Hopefully images will become available in the future.

Other aspects of the article are all good - the article covers the topic comprehensively while remaining focused, and properly referenced. There are no apparent OR or copyvios, and the subject matter is presented in a neutral way. Furthermore, the article is MoS compliant, particularly in terms of the WP:LEAD, RJL and the infobox, unit conversions... The article edit history bears evidence that the article is quite stable.

All in all this is a fine article, meeting all the GA criteria, so I am passing the article!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)