Jump to content

Talk:Maryland Route 198

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exit list

[edit]

I don't see why the attention-elg tag was removed. This exit list should be cleaned up, and that's why I tagged it; I wasn't going to get around to it immediately at the time and I wanted to know which ones I planned to clean up. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 03:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Maryland Route 198/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nbound (talk · contribs) 22:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for good article status. The review began on July 21, 2013. Below is an evaluation of the article, according to the six good article criteria.

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Given that it isnt mentioned elsewhere in the prose (IIRC) this should actually be moved out of the lead and worked in elsewhere. -- Nbound (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the National Highway System part to the second paragraph of the Route description.  V 19:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Prose quality rating: -- 00:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Manual of Style compliance:
  • Appears to meet basic MOS requirements


2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:


3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
  • All major road article aspects covered
Focused:
  • The history section is a little verbose, listing (it appears) every small change, but not outrageously so.


4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:
  • Appears to be neutral


5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):
  • Edit history speaks for itself


6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

(Ideally the article could be improved by images of the roadway itself, this is not required to meet the GAC)


Overall:

Pass or Fail: On Hold pending prose issues, otherwise seems to meet the GA criteria
Thank you for your review, Nbound.  V 01:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Viridiscalculus: - Questions responded to. -- Nbound (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Longer on hold, Pass or Fail: Pass - Nbound (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a reassessment. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply renominate it.
The word "intermodal" is now replaced with simple notice that the highway provides access between US 1 and I-95. The Federal Highway Administration classifies MD 198 as an intermodal connector [1] because it permits transportation between the Muirkirk rail station and I-95, though such explanation is probably too detailed for the lead section and unnecessary. —ADavidB 00:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me ADavidB, but I am the nominator on this GAN and I do not appreciate you jumping in and making changes like that. I have reverted your edit because it adversely changes the meaning of the sentence. If you want to offer suggestions, you may do so here.  V 01:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GA nomination doesn't convey article ownership. I fully explained the change, and based on commentary above, it seems the reviewer agrees the lead isn't a place to get into intermodal transportation. —ADavidB 07:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]