Talk:Mississippi Highway 388

Mississippi Highway 388 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: July 13, 2020. (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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mississippi Highway 388/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 17:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
It contains copyright infringements -
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

Prose

Lede

Should the abbreviation really be in bold? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you would do it here. It's also standardized across the wikiproject. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 07:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations should be only used if they are mentioned again. The lede and body should be treated seperately. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are now. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I'd want more info in the lede, but this is quite a small article, and there isn't much missing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lede should however mention the length and creation/history. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could we cite the length in the article rather than the infobox? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Maps reference is only an estimate of the length, and the one in the infobox is the exact one. Also would not go against wikiproject consensus that was established years ago. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 07:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General

Could we get a little more of an overview of what the subject is in the body? Remember, the lede is separate, so you should be able to read the article on its own. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit more, there's not that much I could add. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you don't use (MDOT) anywhere else in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added one use. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should use the actual term instead of AADT Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rather not, since that will make the table even wider. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link Brooksville in body Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 07:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bottom two sections of the final table supposed to have no location? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the intersections aren't located in an incorporated area. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this WP:BROAD enough? There's not much info on the foundation on the room? By whom, or why it was added.

There's nothing on when it was added in the newspapers, there's some construction projects that I can add tomorrow. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 07:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do think we have an awful lot of primary sources here. Is there not anything else about the road? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more newspapers. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As miles/kilometres are constant, I don't think we need to denote the conversion rate. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA and FA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the review. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]