Talk:Missouri Route 164/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 03:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Taking a look at this one. —Ed!(talk) 03:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * History
 * "Around 1933, Route Y was designated from Cardwell to Caruth,..." might go without saying, but I assume the route that became this road started out at this time as a dirt road? That should be specified otherwise it's confusing.
 * Mentioned starting as a gravel road.&mdash; CycloneIsaac ( Talk ) 05:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "and it was removed and replaced by Route N in 1937." -- When you say "replaced," does this mean it was paved over the same area or is there any differentiation between routes J and N?
 * Reworded to say only the letter was changed.&mdash; CycloneIsaac ( Talk ) 05:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "The entirety of Route Y was paved in 1949,[9][10] and Route N was extended to Route Y by 1953." -- Any projected costs of either of these projects? It should be a matter of public record.
 * I found the cost for the first one, still looking for the other.&mdash; CycloneIsaac ( Talk ) 04:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Found the second one.&mdash; CycloneIsaac ( Talk ) 04:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "An interchange was built at I-55 two years later." -- I would expect a cost of this one would be easy to find, too.
 * No cost for just the interchange, but there is one for that section of I-55.&mdash; CycloneIsaac ( Talk ) 05:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Any projected traffic count on this road?
 * MoDOT does not offer any projections, only traffic count maps every three years.&mdash; CycloneIsaac ( Talk ) 04:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Pass Seeing no gaps in coverage. Cites are favored toward maps but good.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass Though I do think the traffic counts and costs of the infrastructure are an important part of the article.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass no problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass though is it possible to include a map?
 * 1) Other:
 * Dup links, dab links, external links and copyvio tool all check out. —Ed!(talk) 03:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Source spotcheck Ref 6, Ref 14 and Ref 24 all line up with what's cited in the article.

On Hold Pending a few minor fixes. —Ed!(talk) 03:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.&mdash; CycloneIsaac ( Talk ) 05:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work on this one! Passing for GA. —Ed!(talk) 20:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)