# Talk:U.S. Route 64 in Oklahoma

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)

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

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