Talk:New York State Route 17J/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Great job! ~~ ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 23:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is a horrible review. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. On a similar note, I'm not sure why this article even exists as a standalone; its alignment and history are identical to NY 394. – TMF 23:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is a horrible review. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Great job! ~~ ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 23:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: