Talk:History of Maryland Route 200

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Maryland Route 200/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rschen7754 01:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article is horribly scoped. No other WP:USRD highway article has a split like this. Not even for more important routes such as Interstates.

The main MD 200 article is 56K, this history article is 31K and the opposition article is 40K, so they were spun off to comply with WP:SIZE in June 2009. This highway is just as important an artery as an interstate highway, but was financed and built by the Maryland State Highway Administration as a toll road instead of seeking an interstate highway designation.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   WP:LEAD - text should not be bold, lead is too short. The planning section is quite dry. Didn't read through it but don't think I need to. External links don't go in the main text.

   Is there any important idea that is left out of the lead, which I consider to be a fair summary of the entire article? There is no bold text except for the article name.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Too many quotes. Way too many.

   quotation is a way of avoiding close paraphrase, and avoids any copyright concerns.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Most of the article is planning and construction is given only a brief mention. The planning is a horribly long section that rambles on and on.

   The actual construction was a minor portion of the history and deserves less prose.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Serious NPOV issues here and in the parent article.

   Could you please be more specific?

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   A lot of this route is unconstructed, leading to future instability.

   This is a 20 mile highway, 18 miles are either open or actively being constructed. Two miles at the east end are in final planning and contracting for completion in 2014. I don't see instability resulting.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Not seeing the relevance of the image.

   It illustrates the nature of the highway, including sound walls and a parkway ambience.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Failing article To be honest, this article should be merged into Maryland Route 200. Yes, that article is super long, but half of the material in that article shouldn't even be there. That article should be completely rewritten from scratch to comply with WP:USRD/STDS. Our coverage of MD 200 is, and has been for several years, the worst coverage of any highway in USRD. --Rschen7754 04:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has been failed - if you want to appeal you have to go through the usual channels. If you have any questions about the improvement of the article you may contact me on my talk page or go through normal channels. I'm not changing my decision. --Rschen7754 08:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Maryland Route 200/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dough4872 02:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is a mess, with too many quotes. In addition, there are several one-sentence paragraphs.

   Article complies with WP:QUOTE.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are a few dead links in this article. In addition, the formatting of several of the references, such as references 8 and 34, are nonstandard. I also don't see how an e-mail can be a reliable source. There are also a few unreferenced statements in the article such as "The Maryland House of Delegates passed an accompanying resolution, House Joint Resolution 10 with essentially similar provisions."

   Dead links fixed.

   When citing a newspaper, the only required information is data to access a hard copy version. Here, the authors added information on accessing a paid online archive with a notation that there is a fee involved. Such additional information is allowed under WP:CITE.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article focuses too much on the planning on the road and too little on the construction of the road. The history should be condensed to a point where it can be covered in a section of the Maryland Route 200 article.

   "condense to a point where it can be covered in another article is not a GA criteria.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article appears to be slanted to making the ICC look bad.

   All points of view are covered. Do you have a specific example of a POV pushing?

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article still has the same basic issues from the first GA review. Therefore, I will have to fail it. Honestly, this information does not need to be covered in a standalone article. I would suggest cleaning up the prose by cutting out quotes and unnecessary information and merge the detail into the History section of Maryland Route 200. Dough4872 02:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Dough4872 is not a disinterested reviewer, as shown by his AfD of Opposition to Maryland Route 200. I am willing to consider constructive criticism, but a GA review should be from someone who does not have a ideological axe to grind against stand-alone history articles about roads. Accordingly, I will resubmit. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I would highly suggest not renominating this article or any other article related to MD 200 as all the articles are still a mess. This article is only divided into 2 sections and the planning section is way too long and overfilled with excessive information and quotes. The references are still a mess too, with inconsistent formatting and one reference to an e-mail. My rationale for failing this articles is not just based on the fact that the history of a road should not have a standalone article. When a reviewer fails an article, ALL the issues should be addressed before a renomination be made. Quite frankly, that hasn't been done following either review. If you disagree with the two failed reviews, you may take this article to WP:GAR. Also, you may want to check out Talk:Maryland Route 200 for a proposed moratorium on nominating articles related to the subject at GAN. Dough4872 14:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Unbiased and NPOV

I did not write this article, but have read it carefully and added the lead and construction sections. My review did not find POV problems. It maintains an encyclopedic tone in explaining a 30-year controversy that factored into a number of political campaigns. Accordingly, I am removing the tags at the top of the article. Racepacket (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is still a mess and I have readded the cleanup tags back. Dough4872 14:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Be specific on the talk page. Saying the article "is still a mess" is not helpful. Your review does not illuminate either. Please explain in detail why you believe each tag is justified with specific examples. Racepacket (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The planning section seems to drag on to the point where it is WP:TLDR. External links should not be included in the prose; if they are being used as references, they need to do so using reference tags. There are several stubby one and two-sentence paragraphs throughout the article. There are awkward spellings such as "Stand alone Intercounty Connector". The issues stretch beyond the prose quality to the fact the article gives undue weight to the planning and barely talks about the construction of the road. A lot of the political information in the planning section needs to be cut from the article. It should summarized to say several politicians opposed the road rather than list out every instance of a politician's opinion about the road. With the information condensed, this information can logically be merged back to Maryland Route 200. Dough4872 15:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dough! As a relatively recent local resident who's a bit curious as to how this whole situation with the ICC shaped up, I'd benefit from seeing the detail here. This particular little stretch of highway seems to be a key piece for understanding the politics of an overly congested metropolitan area and how its transportation situation got like this. *ducks and covers awaiting tomatoes* Trilliumz (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, took a first pass at copyediting. Is it starting to look a little clearer why all the messy details would be of interest for local and regional politics? Trilliumz (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It still isn't notable, and that's why it's been nominated for AFD before. --Rschen7754 02:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Re: Notability. For this article, it's not due to the project being a feat of highway engineering, but rather on its political impacts, the question of how the highway will affect the major traffic congestion problem, and the duration of the situation. WP:GEOSCOPE "Demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world." DC region is significant; impact here is not just on county govt. but also on 2 governors' races, with direct interest from a sitting US President. WP:EFFECT, includes "possible impact on elections," and "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." Fining drivers who enter without an EZ Pass is a precedent which could well catalyze other developments. WP:PERSISTENCE "Fifty-six years is an embarrassing. The only thing more embarrassing than 56 years would be 57," Ehrlich said about how long the debate has been going on ... It's such a big deal to Ehrlich -- that his voice cracked when talking about it." (from 2006 news story)

Agreed that 50 years of controversy involving two governors may not fit neatly into the established format used by WikiProject Roads. Why not let it branch out into a separate but related article instead? Trilliumz (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been told that this may do better on an article such as Washington Outer Beltway, rather than making a controversial "History of" subarticle. --Rschen7754 05:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly; however, I just heard something on the radio about an "Outer Beltway" discussion in Virginia, so that appears to be a larger concept than the MD Rt. 200. I am not all that familiar with editing to merge articles, nor do I know all that you folks know about organizing highway-related materials. What I can tell you is that as a local person trying to get a little more informed with a basic overview on the history and political controversy around this particular project, I've always heard it called the "Intercounty Connector," not MD Rt. 200 or the Outer Beltway. Getting some clear and basic information together on this topic would help me (and no doubt others) make sense of the rest of the stuff that's out there on the Web and in the news. When you walk into an existing situation where everybody's all lined up on different sides of a controversy, it can sure be helpful to have a summary of the soap opera characters and plot to date! I'm in agreement that the info that's in this article could be improved, or possibly moved to a better location. So I'm hoping your collective experience in how to slice, dice, and present the highway engineering portion will facilitate presenting the information about the public discussion as well ... How the heck do any of us stand a chance of becoming reasonable, informed citizens if even the Wikipedia community is too touchy to give a beginners' explanation of what everybody's all riled up about? Trilliumz (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here's my perspective. A lot of the original history behind the road that is now being built as MD-200 is related to the Outer Beltway. That article could benefit from expansion. If historical material is put there, it can be summarized and linked back into the history section of the main MD-200 article using a {{main}} tag. Ontario Highway 401#History links back to four other highways for full detailed histories, but summarizes them to cover its backstory. Then the ON-401 article continues with its unique history. I think a similar approach could be done here. Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)