Talk:Ohio State Route 370

Ohio State Route 370 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 8, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

U.S. Roads: State highways / Ohio Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	Ohio
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

United States: Ohio Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ohio State Route 370/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Floydian (talk · contribs) 01:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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):
The route description makes no mention of the northern terminus. You should also mention and cite the length in the prose of the RD, as right now it only appears in the Lead and Infobox.
I have added the length and a statement regarding the northern terminus to this section. DanTheMan474 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Ref 3 needs the PDF format indicated.
A PDF format notation has been added to the reference. DanTheMan474 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Has anything happened since the 1940s? If there is such a great gap between the last upgrade and now, you should specify that the route has remain unchanged since then. It also puffs up the history another sentence.
I have added a sentence regarding no changes in the highway's history since the 1940s. DanTheMan474 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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):
Have you looked through Flickr to see if Doug Kerr has any photos of this route to help illustrate the article? If there are none then that is unfortunate but not a GA criterion
Neither Doug Kerr nor I have any photos pertaining to OH 370. DanTheMan474 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Looks good overall. I'm placing the review on hold to allow for changes/comments. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now. I can't find anything else to be picky about, so for me that qualifies the article for some shiny green bling. Passed! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]