Jump to content

Talk:Mississippi Highway 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMississippi 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
DateProcessResult
February 5, 2013Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

[edit]
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. –TCN7JM 23:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review now, also going to add a KML. –TCN7JM 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?

Route description

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

History

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

Major intersections

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

Final verdict

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The prose is a bit off.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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
  7. Overall: Just a few issues here. –TCN7JM 04:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass/Fail:
Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. Dough4872 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I'm passing the article. Good job! –TCN7JM 04:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]