Talk:Mississippi Highway 2/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 03:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

With the issues below resolved, the article complies with MOS policies on grammar, as well as general layout and structure. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article refers to numerous reliable sources for its material, and makes frequent citations to them. No sign of any original research. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

Except in the event that something of statewide importance or greater happened that heavily involved MS 2 - of which I can't currently name anything, myself - I would think that what's covered in the article at present is about as much as one should want from an article on such a subject. And on that, the article seems to perform a satisfactory job of informing the reader of the main points on its subject. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The tone in the article is most definitely neutral and encyclopedic. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

A glance at the revision history indicates that at least as far back as 2014, this article has not been subjected to disruptive behaviours such as edit warring. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The images used in this article are all freely licensed, and serve relevant illustrative purposes. I'm a little new to the wiki-technology regarding the map, but I think I have sufficient reason to assume there is no fair use violation going on with that. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Comments

Eastern segment: At the sentence: "US 45 and MS 2 bypasses Corinth..." Since two highways are mentioned here, shouldn't it be "bypass" as opposed to "bypasses"? We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wilhelmina Will: Changed, that makes more sense. Thanks for the review. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Happy to help! We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
History: "By 1935, MS 2 west of Corinth became part of US 72, and only the part from Corinth to the state line still part of MS 2." Shouldn't that be "remained"? We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, fixed. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 06:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okey-doke! I think that wraps it all up. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the criteria above satisfied, this article qualifies as a GA. Congratulations! We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]