Talk:Mississippi Highway 172

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Mississippi Highway 172 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.
June 19, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject U.S. Roads (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
U.S. Roads WikiProject icon 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.
Topics
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
USRD KML.svg
This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.
This article has been identified as having the following issues:
USRD MTF no.svg
This article needs a map. Please work with the maps task force to create and add a map to this article.
This article has been recognized in the following venues:
Blank shield.svg
This article was the selected article of the U.S. Roads Portal in August 2010.
WikiProject United States / Mississippi (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (marked as Mid-importance).
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mississippi Highway 172/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I will be your reviewer today. Can I start you off with some water, or are we all ready to begin? :)

Just a quick precursory glance and I noticed a few things:

  • The route runs 12.074 mi (19.431 km) from...
Should it be this specific in the lead when it is sourced below in the exit list and to the right in the infobox? Would "12 miles (19 km)" not sufficiently indicate its length here?
      • There's nothing wrong with indicating the approximate length, but since there is a more precise measurement it is better to use that. Dough4872 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • MS 172 was created on the former US 72 by 1998.
Sounds a bit awkward, perhaps "By 1998, the former routing of US 72 was designated MS 172"
    • Rephrased as suggested. Dough4872 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The paved portion was extended slightly west of Iuka in 1936 and more to the west by 1938.
The "more to the west" reads kind of odd. Further west, perhaps?
  • By 1939, the entire length of current MS 172 was a paved highway that remained a part of US 72.
I get what this says, but it seems an odd way of putting it. Perhaps "By 1939, the section of US 72 that would be redesignated as MS 172 was fully paved" (or something similar along these lines. My grammar = fail)
    • Reworded as suggested. Dough4872 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Adobe won't run on firefox for me right now, so I can't view the MSHD mileage source, but I assume there is no data for the junctions with MS 25?
    • The MDOT log does not list mileposts for intermediate junctions, only the total mileage of routes. Dough4872 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll let you make some adjustments before plopping the review table down. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. Dough4872 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:|


|}}

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{1acom}}}|}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{1bcom}}}|}}
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2acom}}}|}}
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2bcom}}}|}}
    C. It contains no original research:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2ccom}}}|}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3acom}}}|}}
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3bcom}}}|}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6acom}}}|}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6bcom}}}|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
Alrighty. The only other thing I've noticed is the lack of non-breaking spaces within route names, for example: US 78. I figure that is a quick fix you can take care of, so I've passed the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)