# Talk:Texas Recreational Road 11

This review is transcluded from Talk:Texas Recreational Road 11/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk · contribs) 23:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
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): 
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: 


### Infobox
No issues


### Lead
No issues


### Route description
No issues


### History
No issues


### Major junctions
No issues


### References
No issues

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have concluded that this article meets the good article criteria. Keep up the good work! Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Texas Recreational Road 11/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Scott5114 (talk · contribs) 22:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Some preliminary comments, before I start on the GA checklist...

The article needs a WP:USRD/MTF-standard map in the infobox. If such a map hasn't been requested, put in a request—it should be simple to fulfill since there is already a KML file.
I have requested a map, but I can't guarantee that one will be made any time soon.
The map that is in the article is useless. It just shows two perpendicular lines with no context to show where or what it's depicting, or even that it's a map. It should be removed.
I have removed it.
The AADT information is irrelevant since it's data for FM 1929, not RR 11. Much of this wouldn't be germane to the article anyway; explaining who TxDOT is and why they measure AADT is beyond the scope of the article. Most of this paragraph should be removed.
Cut everything but the NHS stuff.
a boat-launch ramp of the coast of the lake - on the coast of the lake?
Fixed. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
More later. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Might want to consider splitting the lead into two paragraphs (one for the r/d and one for the history). The history needs to split into two or more paragraphs. This can be kind of tricky with history sections, but a good idea is to put a paragraph break where a large period of time passes between changes.
I split the history after the designation of FM 2134, which I believe is reasonable.
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): 
See comments about the AADT info above.
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): 
See comments about the map above.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On hold until the above issues are addressed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I have attempted to address all of your concerns. Thanks for the review, it was looking like I would have a second Cooper, Texas–length waiting period. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Passed. Congrats on your GA (again). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)