Talk:Mississippi Highway 923/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 15:25, 21 July 2020 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

General comments

I have taken a look at this article. Unfortunately, I think this will have to be quick-failed per WP:GAFAIL, in that "it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". Specifically, it does not meet criterion 3, due to the fact that there is a substantial lack of content on this page. The page consists merely of a brief route description and two sentences of history, and I do not think this is broad enough for a good article. The other issues seem to be satisfactory, including compliance with copyright, image licensing, prose, and NPOV.

It may well be the case that there is no more information to be found for this article. In any case, the article should be expanded more before this is nominated again. epicgenius (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]