Talk:Mississippi Highway 602
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Rschen7754 in topic GA Review
 | Mississippi Highway 602 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. Review: December 21, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mississippi Highway 602/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TheWombatGuru (talk · contribs) 23:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
- Good summary. TheWombatGuru (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- b (MoS):
- Hancock County, Mississippi, Pearl River County, Mississippi and John C. Stennis Space Center are all three linked two times; the two counties are also linked in the infobox and the major intersections sections. TheWombatGuru (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Removed a link for the space center. The other two are okay, AFAIK.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hancock County, Mississippi, Pearl River County, Mississippi and John C. Stennis Space Center are all three linked two times; the two counties are also linked in the infobox and the major intersections sections. TheWombatGuru (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
- b (citations to reliable sources):
- Used reliable logs with an additional map. TheWombatGuru (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
- Why was the route removed from the state highway system? TheWombatGuru (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Can't find sources for that...can't really interpret more than what's on the map.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 17:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why was the route removed from the state highway system? TheWombatGuru (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- No photographs are present. (photographs of still standing route markers, old photographs if available?) TheWombatGuru (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Pictures of roads in Mississippi (that are useable) are extremely rare...and there aren't any for this one.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Usually they're not required at GA, though we do encourage nominators to try and find some if possible. --Rschen7754 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Pictures of roads in Mississippi (that are useable) are extremely rare...and there aren't any for this one.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- No photographs are present. (photographs of still standing route markers, old photographs if available?) TheWombatGuru (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Not really a comment to this article, but the line of text in the Major intersection section could easily be added to Jcttop as it probably appear in a lot of articles in the same grammatical construction. TheWombatGuru (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
This is my first ever review, of course it will need additional reviewers, but I want to learn this stuff, so I thought, let's try it. TheWombatGuru (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- @TheWombatGuru: All issues resolved.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- @CycloneIsaac: Well, then it looks like a Good Article to me. It probably needs another reviewer though, since this was my first review. TheWombatGuru (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- It seems fine for GA, though it wouldn't progress any further. --Rschen7754 20:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- @CycloneIsaac: Well, then it looks like a Good Article to me. It probably needs another reviewer though, since this was my first review. TheWombatGuru (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)