Talk:North Carolina Highway 902/GA1

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

Reviewer: Fredddie (talk · contribs) 05:52, 7 March 2014 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) *"NC 902" is terribly repetitive; mix it up! "Between 1958-63, ..." It should be "Between 1958 and 1963, ..."  1958-63 is one time period and cannot take between as a preposition.  "In, ..." gets repetitive in the history section.
 * 2) *The reversions to the lead actually harm the article. The lead should include all aspects of the article. (Reverted during my review, which affects #5 below)
 * 3) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Could stand to use more references that are not maps. See Delaware Route 17's GAR.
 * 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.:
 * Back and forth editing to the lead is bad for stability.
 * 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:
 * I am failing this article, mostly because of #5, but I really don't like it when someone who is not a significant contributor nominates an article. Sure, the nominator did improve the route description section, but it was sloppy at best and subsequently fixed by who I believe someone who is a significant contributor.  There has been some polite edit warring in the lead section.  Improvements made to the lead have been undone and then reapplied, which disrupts the stability of the article. –Fredddie™ 05:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am failing this article, mostly because of #5, but I really don't like it when someone who is not a significant contributor nominates an article. Sure, the nominator did improve the route description section, but it was sloppy at best and subsequently fixed by who I believe someone who is a significant contributor.  There has been some polite edit warring in the lead section.  Improvements made to the lead have been undone and then reapplied, which disrupts the stability of the article. –Fredddie™ 05:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am failing this article, mostly because of #5, but I really don't like it when someone who is not a significant contributor nominates an article. Sure, the nominator did improve the route description section, but it was sloppy at best and subsequently fixed by who I believe someone who is a significant contributor.  There has been some polite edit warring in the lead section.  Improvements made to the lead have been undone and then reapplied, which disrupts the stability of the article. –Fredddie™ 05:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)