Talk:Mississippi Highway 23

Mississippi Highway 23 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: April 8, 2017. (Reviewed version).

U.S. Roads: State highways / Mississippi Mid‑importance

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.

Article recognition:

	This article was the selected article of the U.S. Roads Portal in May 2017.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mississippi Highway 23/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 00:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~Might be smoother to say 'continues to Red Bay in Franklin County, Alabama': " continues to Red Bay, Franklin County."~~ Changed.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 19:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] ~~This is worded a little awkwardly: Corridor V was constructed to MS 23 by 2014.~~ Added a bit more.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 04:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~Add a wikilink for Amory~~ Done.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 19:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] ~~I am not saying this requires a map, I have never reviewed a highway article before; should it/can it have a map?~~ It can, but I'm not sure how to make one. Other articles have passed without a map.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 19:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] It is not required, and looks like a ton of work. Kees08 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I think your first citation you meant to go to this, not the sentence after it: " and is maintained by the Mississippi Department of Transportation as part of the state highway system." The citation has information on both, so it could stay where it is.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 19:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Why? I do not know anything of the area, is it due to her passing, did it happen while she was alive because she was famous, etc: "The section of the route from Tremont to the Mississippi–Alabama state line is designated as Tammy Wynette Highway: More details added.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 19:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] Yes, yes, that makes sense now. Kees08 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] ~~What route? - The route designation was used for another route from 1932 to 1940.~~ Fixed.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 04:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] Ah, yes, much more clear. Kees08 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.