Talk:Mississippi Highway 172/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dough 48 72 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. Dough 48 72 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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?

- Fixed. Dough 48 72 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. Dough 48 72 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. Dough 48 72 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. Dough 48 72 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the 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:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
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:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

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)[reply]