Talk:Mississippi Highway 465/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ncchild (talk · contribs) 09:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Will start review. Expect comments by Monday...


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

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.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Well written, very clear and to the point but gives enough information about the route.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * I see no bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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:
 * 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.