Talk:History of Maryland Route 200/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dough4872 02:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- 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.
- 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."
- a (references):
- 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.
- 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.
- a (major aspects):
- 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?
- The article appears to be slanted to making the ICC look bad.
- 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:
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)
- 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)