 | Maryland Route 194 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 26, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Woodsboro and Frederick Turnpike, which is now part of Maryland Route 194, was the last private toll road in Maryland when it was purchased by the state in 1921? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Maryland Route 194/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ebe123 (talk · contribs) 13:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- 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:
- No dead links;
- No disambiguation page links;
This article seems good to go, but here's some things:
- Reference list blocked by {{Portal box}} (that should be in see also or external links)
Comments edit
Hold now for 7 days (would get fixed before.) ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 13:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review, Ebe123. The portal box should not be under External links because portals are internal to Wikipedia. WP:ALSO says portal boxes are usually placed in a See also section, but it does not say they are required to be there. Likewise, Template:Portal says portal boxes are meant to be placed in a See also section, but does not say that is required. The reference list is narrowed, but it is still readable and no information is obscured. Is there an accessibility concern? VC 16:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest putting {{Portal bar}} instead. There can be accessability concerns but it's mostly for the visual aspect. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 19:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- None of this is dealt with in the GA criteria, meaning that if this is the only hang up, I suggest that the article be listed and promoted. Imzadi 1979 → 20:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)