Talk:Maryland Route 213/GA1

GA Review

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.
     • 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?
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)

• 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)