Talk:Mississippi Highway 548/GA1

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

Reviewer: TheWombatGuru (talk · contribs) 11:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Lead: The route was removed from maps in 1967, and... --> ...in 1967, but... ? TheWombatGuru (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Route description: "where the road begins turn southeastward" --> "where the road begins to turn southeastward" ? TheWombatGuru (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Route description: "Ms 548 continues to the county line" what county line? TheWombatGuru (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Route description: "The road becomes Old Port Gibson Road after entering Hinds County." Is that the county on the other side of the county line in the question above? Or another county? TheWombatGuru (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Route description: "In 2013, Mississippi Department of Transportation..." does Mississippi Department of Transportation need an article? Not sure. TheWombatGuru (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * More notable than most roads in USRD.&mdash; CycloneIsaac ( Talk ) 15:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * Major intersections: In the destinations column you wrote "County line", would that fit here? TheWombatGuru (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass once problems have been addressed. TheWombatGuru (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All problems have been addressed, thus pass. TheWombatGuru (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass once problems have been addressed. TheWombatGuru (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All problems have been addressed, thus pass. TheWombatGuru (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pass once problems have been addressed. TheWombatGuru (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All problems have been addressed, thus pass. TheWombatGuru (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Quick stalking comment, this article is a little over 1700 bytes of prose. That's barely longer than a stub, and may well fail a DYK review as is. The sources are all WP:ROUTINE coverage which say nothing about why this particularly significant or important. I think this review should be closed and a requested merge set up with some parent list article (whatever that is). Sorry. Also "as many as 220 vehicles traveling west of Shelby Road" - per day, or some other time interval? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you really sorry, though? T  C  N7 JM  15:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well yes, because the nominator wanted the article to reach GA status, so did the reviewer, and I've just rained on their parade. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article, as far as I know, abides by the MoS, it is reasonably well written, and is complete. A good article doesn't necessarily have to be thousands of bytes, if everything there is to tell about is, is already told. TheWombatGuru (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)