Talk:U.S. Route 64 in Oklahoma

U.S. Route 64 in Oklahoma has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 8, 2014. (Reviewed version).

A fact from U.S. Route 64 in Oklahoma appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 December 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that four U.S. highways, including US-64, converge in a traffic circle surrounding the Cimarron County Courthouse in Boise City, Oklahoma?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/U.S. Route 64 in Oklahoma.

Wikipedia

U.S. Roads: U.S. Highways / Oklahoma Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics

U.S. Highways

Locations

Oklahoma

This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.

This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Article recognition:

	This article was the selected article of the U.S. Roads Portal in July 2015.
	A fact from this article was featured on the Did you know? section of the U.S. Roads Portal in February 2014.

Oklahoma High‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 64 in Oklahoma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fredddie (talk · contribs) 16:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I will review this article some time in the next 24 hours. –Fredddie ™ 16:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
MOS:FRAC urges consistent usage of fractions or decimals. Since all of the fractions seem to be cited to the county section maps, I'd guess that they're approximate distances. If I were you, I'd try to convert the decimals to fractions. for consistency's sake.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I would like to see more non-ODOT references
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Just need to get some consistency in the decimals and fractions. I'm not going to hold up the GAN for more non-ODOT references, but I wouldn't take it past GAN without them. –Fredddie ™ 01:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Fredddie: the decimals should be eliminated. Let me know if you see anything I missed. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks fine. Passing. –Fredddie ™ 01:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic