Jump to content

Talk:Maryland Route 213/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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


GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a good article.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • MD 213? mention what it means.
    • Could you reword the following sentence? "The route is a two-lane undivided highway its entire length and passes through ..."
    • Also, the first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead is too detailed for the lead.
    • In the junction list, why the description of the 53.77 mile listed differently?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Could you look for the "Maryland Scenic Byways" Map on the Internet? I hope you find one...
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The "Route description" section is a little too detailed. The info on the number of vehicles is a little too much, in my opinion, but I'll let it slide.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  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:
    -Crzycheetah 00:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to the above changes. As for the format of 53.77 in the Junction list, it is compliant with the standards for water crossings per the WP:ELG. As for the Scenic Byways map, I cannot find the MDSHA equivalent online, I only have a hard copy. I am going to open a discussion at WT:USRD to discuss what to do with traffic counts. Dough4872 (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. I am going to leave this on hold for now due to the overabundance of traffic counts. I like Julian's suggestion of mentioning those numbers once in every paragraph.--Crzycheetah 02:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the traffic counts per the discussion. Dough4872 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better. I am passing this article.--Crzycheetah 03:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]