Talk:Maryland Route 213/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This is a good article.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
MD 213? mention what it means.- It's an abbreviation for "Maryland Route 213". –Juliancolton | Talk 01:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
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?
- a (prose):
- 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...
- a (references):
- 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.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Also, the route description is far too detailed. Traffic counts should be included within every paragraph or so, not every sentence. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I have removed the traffic counts per the discussion. Dough4872 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- That looks better. I am passing this article.--Crzycheetah 03:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed the traffic counts per the discussion. Dough4872 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)