Talk:Mississippi Highway 24

Mississippi Highway 24 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 5, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mississippi Highway 24/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 23:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article after the Super Bowl. –TC N7 JM 23:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review now, also going to add a KML. –TC N7 JM 22:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead/Infobox

The lead states that the route is 76.3 miles long, but the infobox says 76.0. Which is correct?

Fixed. Dough 48 72 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

Subject-verb agreement issues in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

Fixed. Dough 48 72 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of inconsistency in verbs used after subjects that include multiple highways such as "MS 24/MS 33." Either use a plural verb throughout the entire article or a singular one.

Made consistent. Dough 48 72 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to comment on this, but it's bugging me more and more as I read the article. Similar to the PA Tpk. ACR, you have a lot of [verb]ing uses after commas that can easily be changed. History, too.

Changed. Dough 48 72 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History

Is it possible to split the first paragraph in two to get rid of the large block of text?

Split. Dough 48 72 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major intersections

You use concurrency throughout the article, but overlap in this section. You should only use one.

Changed. Dough 48 72 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final verdict

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The prose is a bit off.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No images, so it doesn't really matter
Overall: Just a few issues here. –TC N7 JM 04:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pass/Fail:

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. Dough 48 72 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I'm passing the article. Good job! –TC N7 JM 04:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]