Talk:Guam Highway 1/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jhbuk2 (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short, but seems to cover everything in enough depth for GA. However, one piece of information that seems pretty important is the date the road actually opened - currently it only mentions construction in "early 1940s"
I don't think the lead is long enough
You could link to the pages of the publishers in the refs
[1] is dead. Refs seem reasonable.

Other than these points, the page looks good enough for GA.

(Any pictures available would be good, but not vital.)

Thanks for the review. I will try to get to these as soon as possible. --P C B 22:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed all the issues mentioned. --P C B 23:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question the passing - Sorry, but one, you aren't the major contributor. I looked over your edits, and you should get no credit for this passing. Second, its missing vital information, including when the designation came to be. There is an MOS vio in the article. 66.67% of the Route description lacks citations. Citations currently in there lack of consistency. This not even up to snuff and shouldn't have been nominated in square one.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 23:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I understand. --P C B 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So...it is still a nominee at the moment. Shouldn't it be failed? --P C B 02:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this - I normally make a few comments (which is what this was) before doing a proper review under the GAList, but I was in a bit of a rush and shouldn't really have started it TBH (not really sure why I put it on hold rather than review either, as that's inevitably going to give a wrong impression). This is actually the first opportunity I've had to edit since that time (sorry again, I thought I'd have another chance), and looking through it more thoroughly, I'll have to agree with Mitchazenia, in that the reference in the main section doesn't cover everything, and there are some omissions. I don't think it's completely impossible for this to become a GA with a bit of work. (sorry I'm using an IP; I've had a problem with my account as well). 90.199.218.174 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so what I am saying is that it should be failed.--P C B 14:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you don't want to try to improve it.Fourth ventricle (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]