Talk:U.S. Route 219 in Maryland/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: --P C B 01:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
What dragged this whole thing from an instant pass was the continued use of the term "speed limit" in the route description. Try to find a different word or omit this information altogether, it is not crucial, either.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Is Reference 10 (Svirsky) an self-published source? I'm pretty sure it is. If it is not a reliable source, omit the reference or find a replacement.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
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):
It would be nice if there were a picture, but this is not required.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am putting this article on hold for several small problems, as mentioned above.

I've made a few addition edits to the article myself. When rendering the abbreviation of a highway in boldface, the parentheses should not be in bold. When manually rendering junctions (i.e. without templates or without using the city parameters in the templates) then there should be a non-breaking space before the en dash. The notes column of the junction need not have the termini indicated, especially when the are not the termini of the whole highway, just the state line crossings. In fact the notes should mention that it is the state line. I haven't done it, but there should be non-breaking spaces substituted throughout the article in between a US and a number when the abbreviations are used. The templates do this automatically, but the prose doesn't. The same convention goes for Maryland state highways.

I agree that the speed limits are superfluous details that don't need to be included. The National Bridge Inventory isn't an SPS, so it's fine. (The "author" in this case should be removed from the citation though. See Minnesota State Highway 610 for a GA where the NBI is used as a source.) I would prefer a direct link to the bridge's listing in the NBI though. Ref 6 shouldn't link to the USGS again. It is already linked in Ref 5. If you're linking publishers, please do so consistently. MSHA in Ref 1, MSRC in Ref 4, Arcadia Publishing in Ref 14, PennDOT in Ref 24 should all be linked. (If the MSRC is a predecessor of MSHA, you can either create a redirect to the MSHA article, or pipe the link in the article.)

Do all of the auxiliary routes have redirects to this article? They should if they don't, and if they don't, they shouldn't be in boldface text at all. The formation year should probably have a citation in the infobox. Just some food for thought. Imzadi 1979 → 09:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I guess I didn't go through the article extremely thoroughly. Thanks for the comments. --P C B 22:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speed limits, added non-breaking spaces, fixed the MOS:BOLD and linking issues, and split the NBI references. Please review again. Viridiscalculus (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. --P C B 02:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]