Talk:Texas State Highway 211

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Let me know when you've made the changes! &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Responses:
 * 1. This would cause an inconsistency with the series of Texas highway articles as prescribed at WP:TXSH.
 * 2. Fixed
 * 3. It briefly skirts through the city limits of San Antonio (which is mentioned in the second paragraph of the route description), but it is a rural highway for the most part.  The termini are not located in any cities.  It is a 2-lane road for the most part with the occasional passing lane, this has been added.  It isn't a freeway and the article mentions the reasons for local opposition from what I have been able to find.  I would be speculating as to reasoning of the landowners outside of the reasoning already in the article, but I would imagine they would get more for their land from commercial and home developers than from the state.
 * 6. I haven't been able to find a picture anywhere online that is freely available and I am not sure when I can get a chance to go snap a picture of it myself.
 * --Holderca1talk 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, I caught that in the route description, but I wondered if it was enough to put in the infobox. I think the edits get rid of the rest of my concerns. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 20:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)