Talk:History of Maryland Route 200/GA1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Rschen7754 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Rschen7754 01:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is horribly scoped. No other WP:USRD highway article has a split like this. Not even for more important routes such as Interstates.
- The main MD 200 article is 56K, this history article is 31K and the opposition article is 40K, so they were spun off to comply with WP:SIZE in June 2009. This highway is just as important an artery as an interstate highway, but was financed and built by the Maryland State Highway Administration as a toll road instead of seeking an interstate highway designation.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- WP:LEAD - text should not be bold, lead is too short. The planning section is quite dry. Didn't read through it but don't think I need to. External links don't go in the main text.
- Is there any important idea that is left out of the lead, which I consider to be a fair summary of the entire article? There is no bold text except for the article name.
- WP:LEAD - text should not be bold, lead is too short. The planning section is quite dry. Didn't read through it but don't think I need to. External links don't go in the main text.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Too many quotes. Way too many.
- quotation is a way of avoiding close paraphrase, and avoids any copyright concerns.
- Too many quotes. Way too many.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Most of the article is planning and construction is given only a brief mention. The planning is a horribly long section that rambles on and on.
- The actual construction was a minor portion of the history and deserves less prose.
- Most of the article is planning and construction is given only a brief mention. The planning is a horribly long section that rambles on and on.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Serious NPOV issues here and in the parent article.
- Could you please be more specific?
- Serious NPOV issues here and in the parent article.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- A lot of this route is unconstructed, leading to future instability.
- This is a 20 mile highway, 18 miles are either open or actively being constructed. Two miles at the east end are in final planning and contracting for completion in 2014. I don't see instability resulting.
- A lot of this route is unconstructed, leading to future instability.
- 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):
- Not seeing the relevance of the image.
- It illustrates the nature of the highway, including sound walls and a parkway ambience.
- Not seeing the relevance of the image.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Failing article To be honest, this article should be merged into Maryland Route 200. Yes, that article is super long, but half of the material in that article shouldn't even be there. That article should be completely rewritten from scratch to comply with WP:USRD/STDS. Our coverage of MD 200 is, and has been for several years, the worst coverage of any highway in USRD. --Rschen7754 04:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- The article has been failed - if you want to appeal you have to go through the usual channels. If you have any questions about the improvement of the article you may contact me on my talk page or go through normal channels. I'm not changing my decision. --Rschen7754 08:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)