Talk:Maryland Route 410/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This article is nice, but it needs some work to pass as a GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   1a. The infobox and the junction list use the {{jct}} template which abbreviates to MD ##. The lead sentence should have "(MD 410)" added after "Maryland Route 410" to introduce this convention. This abbreviation can also be used by way of the "pipe trick" for wikilinks in the article.The same can be done for the first time a US Route is mentioned, putting (US ##) after it, then using the abbreviation throughout.
   1b. Just a minor quibble, but I would suggest that all but East–West Highway is removed from the alternate names in the infobox. Listing them all clutters the infobox.
   The en dash is missing in the name in the infobox, and the rest of the article should have the hyphens "-" replaced with en dashes "–". Other situations that fail the guidelines in MOS:DASH are "Bethesda-Silver Spring". This example should have the en dash, and it should be spaced because of the space in "Silver Spring"
   The shields in the notes column of the junction list should be erased, and the destinations unlinked. alternately, they can be combined, à la:
   MD 390 (16th Street) to MD 97 – Wheaton, Washington by way of {{jct|state=MD|MD|390|MD|97|to2=to|name1=16th Street|city1=Wheaton}}, [[Washington, D.C.|]] The MD 97 shield can be dropped as well by using the noshield2=y parameter if you'd prefer.
   The junctions with streets in the list that aren't formatted using {{jct}} need their hyphens swapped for en dashes to match the output of the template.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Ref 7 needs an accessdate.
   There is overlinking in the references section. The first reference published by MSHA is all that needs a link to the MSHA article, the rest can be unlinked.
   While not a requirement, you might consider switching the ISO-format dates to full Month ##, #### format.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I'll be a bit blunt here. I haven't read the RD, nor do I plan to at the moment. It is approaching the length of the RD in M-28 (Michigan highway), which covers a 290-mile long highway. The sheer size of this RD indicates to me that there's just too much detail covered, and that this article isn't using summary style. Sometimes, less is more.

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):

   The cities don't need to be wikilinked in the captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   At this point, I can't support passing the article. I think it will take longer than a week to fix the issues. There are minor prose issues, minor MOS issues and other minor formatting issues. If that were all, I'd hold this article. The fact remains that there is way too much text and detail in the RD section, so much that it has to be divided by county and then again by city. There are feature articles on longer highways with shorter RD sections. Please summarize the information, and renominate. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)