# Talk:Mississippi Highway 172

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mississippi Highway 172/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
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. Dough4872 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
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. Dough4872 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
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. Dough4872 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
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. Dough4872 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
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. Dough4872 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll let you make some adjustments before plopping the review table down. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. Dough4872 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mississippi Highway 172. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610213240/http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/65/003/0003.htm to http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/65/003/0003.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)