# Talk:Utah State Route 161

The route description and history sections are both too short for this to merit B-class.  For example, the fact that SR-161 is a former alignment of US-91 is mentioned briefly in the lead, but not in the history section where it should be. -- Kéiryn (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Utah State Route 161/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, but I've got class in 15 minutes and I have to leave. Give me 2-3 hours and I should have the reviews up...at the MOST I'll have it up by tonight. Cheers, —the_ed17— 17:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I don't like the three red links in the template at the top. Could you put short histories of the three [Utah State Route 161 (1933-1935), Utah State Route 161 (1935-1953), and Utah State Route 161 (1961-1964)] in the 'History' section?
On hold for now; if you need help, just ask! —the_ed17— 22:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it'll do. =) If any of those article are created, then add the {{seealso}} to the top. Cheers! —the_ed17— 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)