Talk:Virginia State Route 175/GA1

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 18:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

, I will engage in thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian   (talk)  18:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

, I've completed a thorough, thoughtful, and comprehensive review and re-review of this article and I find that it exceeds the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Before it passes, I do have some comments and suggestions that should be addressed first. Thank you for your many quality contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian   (talk)  18:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): 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 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines Virginia State Route 175, establishes Virginia State Route 175's necessary context, and explains why Virginia State Route 175 is otherwise notable.
 * The info box for the Virginia State Route 175 is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
 * The map of Virginia State Route 175 is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here in this article.
 * The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Route description
 * Consider also including an inline citation to the USGS topographic map for this area, as an additional reference. I've included the citation for both quadrangles that cover SR 175 below:
 * Added references.  Dough   4872   01:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The image of the Whealton Memorial Causeway between the mainland and Chincoteague is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here in this article.
 * The first mention of SR 175 in the main prose beginning in this section should begin with at least one mention of the highway by its full name: Virginia State Route 175.
 * Added.  Dough   4872   01:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
 * Added.  Dough   4872   01:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

History
 * This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Major intersections
 * While this table is beautifully formatted, I suggest including an inline citation at the header of each column so that all its content is properly sourced.
 * Added refs to headers (the km header does not get a ref since it is a conversion from the miles, which is referenced).  Dough   4872   01:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

SR 175Y
 * This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.
 * The table is also beautifully formatted and its contents are cited and verifiable.
 * Thanks for the review, I have replied above.  Dough   4872   01:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you for thoughtfully addressing these comments in a timely manner. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian   (talk)  02:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)