Talk:Texas Recreational Road 2/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 00:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Quality of the article is good.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Article complies with MoS.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Good.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * References support all statements included in the article.
 * C. No original research:
 * No original research found.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * All major aspects of the topic have been covered.
 * B. Focused:
 * Article remains focused throughout.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No bias found.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Article is stable.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Image is tagged correctly.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Appropriate image is used with a suitable caption.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments
Nothing needs to be fixed on the nominators part. I have fixed the minor issues within the the article.--Dom497 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)