# Talk:Colorado State Highway 74

This review is transcluded from Talk:Colorado State Highway 74/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dough4872 00:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Try to cut down on the use of "then" in the route description. The sentence "Southward, SH 74 enters Evergreen, where it passes Evergreen Lake and Dedisse Park, surrounded by pine forest." sounds awkward. The second paragraph has several choppy sentences that should be reworded and combined. The sentence "By 1938, SH 68 had replaced SH 74 from Echo Lake to Bergen Park, and the route was extended to its current terminus at US 40." contradicts the rest of the article which says the current terminus is at I-70. Given the fact the I-70 did not exist back then, I have to assume that SH 74 must have been extended from US 40 to I-70 at some point.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Can a reference to a current map be added to the last sentence of the history?
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The lead is short and needs some more information as to provide a summary of the article.
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): 
An image of the road would be nice, but not required.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I am putting the article on hold to allow for fixes. Dough4872 00:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I believe I have fixed all of the errors mentioned. Any more specifics? --PCB 14:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
No, at this point, the article looks good enough for me to pass it. Dough4872 19:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How can this be a GA without a map showing actually where it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs) 16:01, 1 June 2010‎ 

I don't disagree - in fact, I agree entirely - but having a map isn't part of the Wikipedia-wide GA criteria, thus an article really can't be docked for not having one. I've said this on more than one occasion: I personally don't believe a road article is a "good article" if it doesn't have a map and I would never nominate an article for GA that doesn't have one, but unless the GA criteria makes having images and/or diagrams mandatory, I don't see a lack of a map as ever becoming a valid reason to fail a nomination. – TMF 19:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
A map was added. --PCB 01:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)