Talk:Mississippi Highway 496

Mississippi Highway 496 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 25, 2022. (Reviewed version).

U.S. Roads: State highways / Mississippi Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	Mississippi
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

United States: Mississippi Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Mississippi portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mississippi Highway 496/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 420Traveler (talk · contribs) 03:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lead and infobox[edit]

Add the length and that its a east-west highway.

Unnecessary when the the rest of the lead already states the direction, and the length is covered in the infobox. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at: Washington State Route 538, Washington State Route 539, Washington State Route 28, New York State Route 28 for example. Most are GA or FA and have this info. -420Traveler (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The route starts at MS 19 near Meridian" I would change the word "start" since technically it starts at both ends.

The route starts where the milepost is 0. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you are correct you can leave it this way. It would just sound better the other way because if someone that lived in Alabama or travelling west reading this would think it begins at the east end. -420Traveler (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add sources to the existed from date in the infobox.

I wouldn't add something not even the example for {{infobox road}} includes. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, look at: New York State Route 28, New York State Route 28A, New York State Route 28B, New York State Route 28N for example. Most are GA or FA and have this info. -420Traveler (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The date is repeated later in the article, so there is no need to. I'll take the MOS over FAs from almost a decade ago. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add if its a two-lane road for its entire length or something similar to the lead.

That's too much detail for the lead. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you don't have to, you are correct -420Traveler (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route description[edit]

Not required, but are any images available on Flickr or anywhere else? -420Traveler (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to find one. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link "Meridian" -420Traveler (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already linked in the lead. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to MOS:REPEATLINK the first occurance after the lead should be linked. -420Traveler (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"and the route travels eastward into rural, forested Lauderdale County" Change "into" to "through", as it sounds like it didn't start in Lauderdale County. -420Traveler (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link "Alabama" -420Traveler (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to MOS:REPEATLINK the first occurance after the lead should be linked. -420Traveler (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pointless for an article that I could read completely without scrolling, but sure. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with a mobile device would have to scroll. -420Traveler (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link "Cuba" -420Traveler (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I use the traffic count reference? You need to add directions to the reference such as "Select Lauderdale County then zoom into route 496" or something similar. -420Traveler (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should click on the reference and read the instructions. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did but to the average reader its not that clear. Here is an example: ^[1] -420Traveler (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think higher of average readers, having the capability to click on the article thus being capable of clicking on a reference. We shouldn't need to handhold our readers through every single step. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@420Traveler: how is this reference any different from the Kansas PMIS reference? I don't recall seeing instructions for that in any article? –Fredddie ™ 04:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I didn't see that was already discussed. However, if I find that in a Kansas article I'm going to remove it especially if it's as poorly worded as it is. –Fredddie ™ 04:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

The history section is good. You dont have to, but I found an article that you could add to lead up to the 1964 project. -420Traveler (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major intersections[edit]

I would add the exact length and the source that backs it up. I realize that Mississippi doesn't have route logs like new york or kansas has for example, so the mileage for MS 897 can rely on google.

There are no public sources that state the exact length for the intersections within the route. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but there is for the east terminus so add that and leave the MS 897 length as a google reference. The total shouldn't be different in the major intersections than the infobox. -420Traveler (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that will lead to false precision for that intersection, so I rather not do it. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's confusing to the reader that they are both different. -420Traveler (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you would rather lie instead? I'm not changing my mind on this. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is that lying? Im saying to leave mileage for MS 897 at 12.4 miles with the google reference and change the eastern terminus to 13.198 with reference #1. Its done like this in many other road articles. -420Traveler (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Outside comment) The guidelines at MOS:UNCERTAINTY permit rounding in cases where the level of precision has no bearing on how the content is read. The difference here is so minor that it's not worth spilling ink over. Sounder Bruce 21:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979:, sorry to bother you, just need a second opinion on this. Is it ok to leave it the way it is or should bothe mileages be the same? Thanks for the help. -420Traveler (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the terminal intersection should have the length as its milepost, or be mathematically the length (say if the other terminus isn't set at 0.000, the difference between the two should equal the length of the highway).

The level of precision of the mileposts though is almost more important. I've run into situations where a single milepost, determined using an alternative source, was given with greater precision than technically warranted so that the decimal points stayed lined up down the column of the table. The reverse situation would apply here: rounding everything down to the same level of precision for consistency. That consistency aids readability of the numbers in the table. If other articles are mixing precision, they should be changed. We should round off lengths in prose, (please do so in the lead sentence), so if the infobox is the only location with the full precision, that's ok too. There are some other issues in the article, but I'll leave that to another conversation. Imzadi 1979 → 00:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments[edit]

Just a quick run-through, will add more later. -420Traveler (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing now as you have fixed everything. -420Traveler (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Kansas Department of Transportation (2014). "2014 Condition Survey Report". Topeka: Kansas Department of Transportation. Archived from the original on March 19, 2012. Retrieved August 2, 2015. For Wilson County type '47' for route number, type '4' for district number, type '103' for county number; for Neosho County type '47' for route number, type '4' for district number, type '67' for county number; for Crawford County type '47' for route number, type '4' for district number, type '19' for county number; then add all three values for total mileage.

[PMIS-1] Kansas Department of Transportation (2014). "2014 Condition Survey Report". Topeka: Kansas Department of Transportation. Archived from the original on March 19, 2012. Retrieved August 2, 2015. For Wilson County type '47' for route number, type '4' for district number, type '103' for county number; for Neosho County type '47' for route number, type '4' for district number, type '67' for county number; for Crawford County type '47' for route number, type '4' for district number, type '19' for county number; then add all three values for total mileage.

[1]