Talk:U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Bneu2013 (talk · contribs) 23:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: NoobThreePointOh (talk · contribs) 09:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Spelling and grammar are proper. I can do some spelling improvements if I can, but for what it's worth, this is passable. I don't see anything that won't appeal to a range of audiences. The route description is also well detailed for a highway that only runs like 57 or 58 miles in Tennessee.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Follows MOS perfectly fine and has lists incorporated well.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All material in the route description and history sections of the article that could be considered contentious have references.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The sources are cited inline without any formatting errors.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research as far as the eye can see.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows only a 3.8% on the copyvio detector, which is incredibly low. Even then, there's no sign of any possible plagiarism. Nice work.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Fixed this up.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Does this properly.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Looks fine and gives equal weight to I-26 as well, even though that interstate is less significant.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I see no edit wars, which is fine.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are not copyrighted and are fair use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are relevant to the article and have captions to explain, along with significance.
	7. Overall assessment.	Actually, I'm done reviewing. This article looks very good in quality, and I will pass this.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.