Talk:Mississippi Highway 465/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ncchild (talk · contribs) 09:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Will start review. Expect comments by Monday...
I'll note in my comments below any additional suggestions, which aren't strictly required to meet the GA criteria, but those that are meant to make sure that the resulting GA is actually a good article.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- Citations look good. Article is well cited.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Article stays on focus in both the route description and the history, covers the major aspects about the route and its routing along with going into good detail about the history.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- I see no bias:
- I see no bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- Since there are no pictures I can't really say anything.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Good job with the article, I think I'm going to use it to model some of my smaller GA's in the future. Everything seemed good to me, so it passes.
- Pass/Fail: