Talk:Texas Recreational Road 2/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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.
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.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
All major aspects of the topic have been covered.

B. Focused:
Article remains focused throughout.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
No bias found.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Article is stable.
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.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

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)[reply]