Talk:Washington State Route 26/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The article needs a copyedit in order to be passed. The first sentence alone needs attention. Other sentences are just lists of links to cities or other highways. There are references that show up out of order, ie [8][6][7] instead of [6][7][8]. The second paragraph of the History has a sentence "A couple of recent and current projects.." That should be reworded since it will be out of date in the near future. The History section doesn't run in chronological order. Please start with the earliest history of the highway and work to the present instead of jumping around.
 * 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):
 * I'd like to see a photo added, but it's not required.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The issues with the prose are too numerous to allow this article to pass. Please have a neutral editor look over and copy edit this article. The reference issue with the lead should also be cleared up. Please feel free to renominate at GAN once these issues are cleared up. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a photo added, but it's not required.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The issues with the prose are too numerous to allow this article to pass. Please have a neutral editor look over and copy edit this article. The reference issue with the lead should also be cleared up. Please feel free to renominate at GAN once these issues are cleared up. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned about this article being failed for prose issues, but, now that I have read it, I agree with Imzadi1979. The introduction is totally unreadable. Much of the article needs to be rewritten before it is resubmitted for a GA review. Wronkiew (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)