Talk:Maryland Route 222/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Imzadi 1979 → 04:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Can you find out when MD 222 Truck was created? Leaving that out is a bit of an omission in this article.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Both photos are fine and the map are fine. A caption under the map in the infobox would be nice though.
Added caption. V C 07:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'll hold the article until you can find the history on the truck route, which needs to be added to this article to meet the GA criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 13:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding MD 222 Truck

I do not have or highly doubt reliable sources exist to confirm when MD 222 Truck was created. Based on the SPSs, I know MD 222 Truck was likely preceded by US 222 Truck and the changeover would have occurred around 1995 when MD 222 replaced US 222. However, those SPSs are of questionable reliability for our purposes, since they are speculating. I do not think there are any official sources that would state when the truck route was established. MDSHA does not inventory truck routes; also, since trucks are not restricted or prohibited on MD 222, the truck route would not appear in truck restriction documents. I considered AASHTO for figuring out when US 222 Truck was created or removed, but I do not think AASHTO has jurisdiction over the establishment of U.S. Highway truck routes. I think the only thing I could possibly find (and it would require contacting AASHTO) is a copy of the document from 1995 that discusses the specifics of truncating US 222 at US 1. However, that would not indicate when MD 222 Truck was marked. In conclusion, I do not think your request to add the history of the truck route is actionable. Perhaps you can offer a suggestion on how it can become actionable. V C 07:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the truck route not appear on state maps? The problem is, you really need that history for this article to meet the GA criteria. If the truck route is going to be merged to this article, its creation is a major aspect of its history. Without it, the story of that road is incomplete. Even if it weren't merged here, it's still a detail I'd expect to find in the parent route's history. M-28's three business loops are not merged into the parent article, but the paragraph summary of them does give that basic detail (term of existence). An exact date isn't needed; you could use a fuzzy "in 1995" if you had two maps that showed before and after the designation. Imzadi 1979 → 07:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The truck route does not appear on the official state maps. It does not appear in the SHA grid maps. It does not appear in the Highway Location References. It does not appear on the truckers map. I have searched the SHA and MDOT websites for various terms and I get nothing. The only evidence I have that the truck route even exists, let alone how long the truck route has existed, is SPS photo tours that depict what is out in the field. Photos are reliable for proving something exists, but it is unlikely the photos illustrate when something was created. I understand your example with M-28's business loops, but you are comparing apples to oranges because business and alternate routes are much more prominently mapped and inventoried. V C 16:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the date, as fuzzy as it is, the article meets the criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 12:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments unrelated to GA criteria

You might want to remove the extra links in the infobox per WP:OVERLINK
In general, U.S. state is a low-value link. It's not needed since Maryland explains the concept of being a state in the union. Tony1 pulled the link from Capitol Loop before (or during) its nomination at FAC.
It's something quirky with how {{cite book}}, but I'd move the volumes into the title as a subtitle. Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland: 1927–1930. instead of Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland. 1927–1930.
Additionally, you should consider changing the date format in the citations, the ISO-style format in use is a holdover over from a time when the templates used date linking to format dates based on registered users' preference settings. They required the ISO-style as a technical limitation. (2011-03-03 used to generate a blue link formatted to the user's preferences but March 3, 2011 did not. Now neither does.) The ISO style is not terribly reader-friendly. Just food for thought.
The MTR posting I don't think is an appropriate link to include. It's low-value compared to the others, which add to the article.