Talk:Mississippi Highway 604
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Dough4872 in topic GA Review
Mississippi Highway 604 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: October 27, 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
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mississippi Highway 604/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 01:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- In the route description, I would switch the order of the paragraphs to have the description of the route progession to be first and the traffic count/NHS/code/scenic byway paragraph be second.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- There is {{Mississippi road map}} for which the maps can be templaticized with.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- In the route description, you should mention how many lanes the route is and whether it is divided or not.
- Any road names for MS 604?
- What kind of "buffer zone" is near Pearlington?
- When was this road originally built and when was it initially designated as US 90?
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- An image of the road would be nice, but not required.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
I will place the article on hold for a few concerns to be addressed. Dough4872 01:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dough4872: All issues fixed except the references and road name, since there isn't one.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 17:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- You still don't provide a date of when the road was initially built and designated as US 90. Dough4872 21:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- With that issue addressed, and some factual fixes I applied myself, I will now pass the article. Dough4872 03:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)