Talk:Interstate 140 (North Carolina)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:50, 30 January 2021 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Good lead section provides an overview of the article's contents. Made some minor changes to tighten up but no substantial or flagrant errors.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sourcing quality is solid; there is one dead link, as a note, but it is in a full citation and thus verifiable. Healthy amount of citations to local newspapers, some not available online; Google seems to be acceptable as well per WP:USRD standard. Earwig mostly catches official names (e.g. "Battle Royal Natural Heritage Site").

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers the entire scope of the page evenly, with appropriate detail for an article of this type.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Just some quickly reverted IP edits, nothing too large.

6. 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):

   The article has four associated images, all properly captioned and all under a CC license. There is also a Wikimedia Commons category linked at the end, containing several additional photos. They are well used alongside relevant sections of the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I don't see any issues here, and I looked hard. This is being passed.