Talk:Mississippi Highway 604

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. 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.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. 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?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I will place the article on hold for a few concerns to be addressed. Dough4872 01:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dough4872: All issues fixed except the references and road name, since there isn't one.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 17:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
With that issue addressed, and some factual fixes I applied myself, I will now pass the article. Dough4872 03:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]