Talk:M-36 (Michigan highway)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 01:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The traffic counts are different in the lead and in the route description. Is it possible to use the exact traffic counts in the lead? Otherwise, I may consider pulling the traffic counts from the lead as I feel they don't need to be discussed there.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Can a little more details about the physical surroundings in the rural areas be added to the route description, particularly for the eastern portion of the route?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I will put the article on hold for a couple minor fixes. Dough 48 72 01:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead uses rounded numbers to avoid being precise in a summary.
- I still don't see the need for traffic counts in the lead, I would personally remove them. Dough 48 72 02:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The environment along the whole routing is described. For the section east of Pinckney, the article already discusses how the highway passes through the lake country in the area. Imzadi 1979 → 02:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the lake country, does it pass through farms or woods? Dough 48 72 02:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]