# Talk:California State Route 243

This review is transcluded from Talk:California State Route 243/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 20:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Rschen7754, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Rschen7754, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article, and I assess that it meets all the criteria for Good Article status. Before I pass it, however, I do have a few comments and questions that need to be addressed. Thank you for all your hard work on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

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: 

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, this article's lead stands alone as a concise overview. This lede defines the route, establishes context for the route, explains why the route is notable, and summarizes the most important points about the route. It summarizes the Route description section, the History section, and mentions the major intersections.
The map of State Route 243 is released into the public domain and is therefore free to use in this article.
The info box is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced in the template and by the references below in the prose.
California Department of Transportation should be wiki-linked and mentioned by name with the abbreviation in the lede section, as it is responsible for the road's maintenance.
I'm not convinced that it should be, since it is in the infobox. --Rschen7754 21:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The lede is well-written, its contents are internally-cited by verifiable sources below in the prose, and I have no other suggestions or questions regarding this section.
Route description

Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, it is suggested that inline citations should be consolidated at the end of sentences and paragraphs, and not within. But of course, this is not a deal breaker, and is merely a suggestion.
See below. --Rschen7754 21:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Riverside County should be named in this section, as it is named in the lede.
Done. --Rschen7754 21:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The abbreviation for California Department of Transportation should be mentioned in parentheses after its first mention in this section.
Done. --Rschen7754 21:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are internally-cited by verifiable sources below in the prose, and I have no other suggestions or questions regarding this section.
History

As mentioned above, per Wikipedia:Inline citation, it is suggested that inline citations should be consolidated at the end of sentences and paragraphs, and not within. But of course, this is not a deal breaker, and is merely a suggestion.
All I see there is "Inline citations are often placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph", which doesn't mean that they can't be; in this case, it makes clear what information comes from what source. --Rschen7754 20:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are internally-cited by verifiable sources below in the prose, and I have no other suggestions or questions regarding this section.
Major intersections

The mention about the entire route being in Riverside County should be moved up to the route description section.
That actually is part of the header template, and replaces the county column, per WP:RJL. --Rschen7754 20:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The table is beautifully formatted and its contents and its contents are internally cited within the table. Under the post mile column, the inline citations should be listed in numerical order.
Done. --Rschen7754 20:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are internally-cited by verifiable sources below in the prose, and I have no other suggestions or questions regarding this section.
@Caponer: All replied to, and thanks for the review! --Rschen7754 21:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Rschen7754, upon my review of this page, and of the article, I find that you have a sufficiently responded to and addressed all my questions and concerns. This article easily meets GA criteria, and I hereby pass it to GA status. Congratulations! -- Caponer (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)