Talk:Mississippi Highway 41

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mississippi Highway 41/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 03:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Well-written:

With the issue outlined below having been satisfactorily addressed, the article complies with MOS policies on grammar, as well as general layout and structure. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses numerous reputable sources, and makes regular use of inline citations. There is no sign of original research. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(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

Broad in its coverage:

As I stated in the other review, and especially given the evident extent of research that has gone into the construction of these articles, this article seems to cover all aspects of the topic which are encyclopedically relevant, and for which reputably sourced information exists. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article's tone does not convey any sort of bias towards or against any aspect of it subject which is discussed. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Since its creation, this article has not been subjected to any disruptive editing processes such as edit warring. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Again, as in the case of Mississippi Highway 2, all images and media used in this article serve relevant informative and illustrative purposes, and are all freely licensed. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Comments

• Route description: "The road becomes North Main Street at Reynolds Street, and it passes by schools part of the Pontotoc City School District..." Shouldn't that be "schools that are part of", "schools within" or even "schools included in"? Honestly, in part due to this being a sort of night shift for me, this bit tripped me up much more than I would have expected. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Should be the first option, and fixed. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

After reading this article through, and checking it against the criteria, before and after the requested modifications, I believe that it qualifies as a GA. Congratulations! We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)