Talk:Interstate 81 in Maryland

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 81 in Maryland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Disamb. links and external links check out.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Wikilink US 40 somewhere in the text (I could not see it.)

   "The southbound ramps to PA 163 are in Maryland and the northbound ramps are in Pennsylvania.[1][4]" needs to be more precise → "The entrance and exit ramps between southbound I-81 and PA 163 are in Maryland and the northbound ramps are in Pennsylvania.[1][4]" Consider a similar change for the exit list.

   US 40 is wikilinked in the Lead.

   I changed the sentence to "The southbound exit ramp to and entrance ramp from PA 163 are in Maryland and the northbound ramps are in Pennsylvania."  VC  05:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Footnote 1 should reference page 19 for discussing ramps with PA 163. For long multi-page documents, please include page numbers in the footnotes.

   Footnote 1 should not reference page 19 because I am not using Footnote 1 solely for referencing the PA 163 ramps. I have added the page range to the footnote for all of the I-81 information.  VC  05:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

   Correct.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Regarding future construction you might want to point out that the Route 163 bridge is marked structurally deficient in the NBI. Also, according to ref. 26 the cost of the project was estimated at $3.4 million.

   I am not going to add the info about the PA 163 bridge because there are no documented plans to replace it. Which project is estimated at $3.4M?  VC  05:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

   Cost to widen I-81 to six lanes.

   I am pretty sure it costs much, much more than $3.4M to add two lanes to a 12-mile highway. $3.4M was the cost of the study, not any actual construction.  VC  05:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

   it sounded low to me as well. Racepacket (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

   Clarify that the entire bridge is in Maryland and the WVa border is on western edge of the Potomac River.

   I do not think that piece of information is important enough to include in the Route description and I cannot think of a non-awkward way of saying it.  VC  05:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

   How about, "I-81 crosses the West Virginia state line on the West bank of the Potomac River and enters Maryland as a four-lane freeway with a speed limit of 65 miles per hour (105 km/h). "

   That is very awkward. The fact that the state line is on the West Virginia side of the river is a very minor detail (especially in the Route description) that is not going to be added.  VC  05:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

   Do you have any traffic density figures?

   I added traffic density figures to the Future section to support the highway being congested.  VC  05:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

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):

   Nice pictures, which do check out.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold. Racepacket (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Traffic density figures are not required anywhere, and your continual insistence on having them in highway articles is a disturbing trend. --Rschen7754 17:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that it is not a GA criteria. I was asking if he had any available, particularly since he was discussing traffic congestion and the need for a third lane. You are correct that we must all try to use the GA criteria that are in place and not apply the GA criteria we wished that we had. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work on the article. Congratulations. Racepacket (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)