Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mississippi Highway 548/1

Mississippi Highway 548[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted per insufficient coverage Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This short article is orange tagged for incompleteness. Several comments on talk and at the roads WikiProject disput that it is of GA quality at current, as do I. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Talk:Mississippi Highway 548#History there's more material that could be added, and which is badly needed. A "maps-only history" is generally a last resort at the GA level, when there really are no other sources, and is highly frowned upon. I'm leaning remove but will come back to this and see if there are improvements before the discussion closes. --Rs chen 7754 02:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming my remove as the nominator hasn't even bothered to comment on this page. --Rs chen 7754 03:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the GA status as the article stands right now. However, if the missing information from the state laws are added (as mentioned on the talk page), this GA might be able to be salvaged. Dough 48 72 04:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to have to go with remove. I recommended during the original GA review that this should not be passed for reasons pretty much reiterated here, and have tried to salvage what I can from it, including a DYK nomination (which does tend to bring forth copyeditors and fixes from all over the place), but ultimately this just doesn't meet #3 ("Broad in coverage") from the GA criteria. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm chiming in here because I am reviewing the DYK nomination. Unless new sources are found (I'm going to give it a couple more days), it will not be accepted for DYK. About GA, I am not an experienced GA reviewer, so I will just say that I was surprised - make that amazed - when I found out it had been approved for GA. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]