Talk:Maryland Route 97/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting review

I will undertake this review. The article appears stable and neutral. Images all appear in order. There appears to be nothing of interest along this road - no interesting or notable buildings, attractions, parks... anything. Within the constraint that any such features need to be backed up by sources, is therenothing to be said here other than describing how this road gets from A to B?

- In the route description, I do mention a few points of interest. Dough4872 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A general comment about the highway articles. Cannot the route description begin with some sort of general comments about what the purpose of the route is (if they have a purpose)? Things like "Route x connects regional centres A, B and C along the Y river valley, and acts a transport corridor for commuters working in Z city" - stuff of that nature. I realise, though, that this needs to be achieved without WP:OR.
- It could, but the lead can mention that information as it is supposed to be a summary of the article. Dough4872 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i've come across this issue before. The lead is meant to be a summary of hte article - so all information in the lead - including in this case a description of the purpose of the road, should be data somewhere in the main body. My understanding is that nothing should appear in the lead that is not also in the main text (obviously not necessarily in identical words!) hamiltonstone (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a brief summary of the route at the beginning of the route description. Dough4872 (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific points:

Why mph, yet km/h? should not the punctuation of the two be the same?
- It is done that way per Template:Convert.
"With the creation of the U.S. Highway System in 1926, present-day MD 97 north of Westminster became a part of U.S. Route 140. By 1940, MD 97 was designated to run from..." I read this as implying that MD97 as a designation for a road was first used sometime between 1926 and 1940. If that is correct, make that statement; if it is not, please rephrase this element of the lead.
- MD 97 was a state highway by 1940, as indicated by the "By 1940" in the second sentence. Dough4872 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what i am saying is that this should be explicitly stated, not implicit in the text. In an article on highway X, when it was either first built, or first designated X, is fundamental information that a reader should be able to see spelt out. Don't leave it to be inferred. There should be a sentence here (and in similar articles) that says something like "The designation MD 97 was first used (insert when) for the road (insert where)" (insert refs usedo conclude this). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased it to be more clear. Dough4872 (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"MD 97 was aligned onto its current alignment north of Westminster with the removal of US 140 from the U.S. Highway System with the MD 140 designation being applied to the former MD 97 that ran northwest from Westminster." Clumsy sentence needs work - aligned/ment used twice; phrases being connected with 'with' twice.
- Fixed wording. Dough4872 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...is followed by Washington Metro's Red Line". This seems the wrong wording. Parallel? Above, below? Not followed, though. Also need to reorder this sentence - the sequence isn't right at the moment, with the speed lmit info being followed by geographical route info (the metro line) - reads oddly.
- Reworded. Dough4872 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...commercial areas of high-rise buildings in Silver Spring before heading into residential areas" Areas used twice.
- Changed one. Dough4872 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The route intersects the northern terminus of Maryland Route 390 (16th Street), which heads south and becomes 16th Street Northwest upon entering the District of Columbia." To be clear, this is saying Route 390 heads south and becomes 16th Street. If so, why are we being told this in the article on MD97?
- To provide an idea of where that route heads as a destination. Dough4872 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"MD 97 passes more residences as a 35 mph (56 km/h) that continues toward Wheaton." word missing - a 35mph what? Anyway, try rephrasing. MD 97 changes to a 35 mph (56km/h) speed limit as it passes residence on its route toward Wheaton." perhaps.
- Added "road". Dough4872 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"into more wooded neighborhoods" Meaning there were wooded neighbourhoods earlier? I didn't notice. Or do you mean just "wooded neighbourhoods"?
- Removed "more". Dough4872 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It heads out of Brookeville, with the Georgia Avenue name resuming and the speed limit increasing..." Two things. First, how on earth did this happen? It was Georgia avenue ages back. How can it become Georgia avenue again? Second the expression os clumsy ("the Georgia Avenue name resuming"). Try re-working this.
- Reworded. Dough4872 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any information about major bridges or interchange construction, eg Patapsco River?
- The specific dates for bridge construction are unknown as for interchange construction. Dough4872 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what a 'folded-diamond interchange' is, and it isn't wikilinked.
- Added wikilink. Dough4872 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Dualization". Is that a real word??
- Yes, it refers to when a road is widened into a divided highway. Dough4872 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have made changes to the article and replied to the above comments. Dough4872 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]