Talk:Maryland Route 318

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Pzoxicuvybtnrm in topic GA Review
Good articleMaryland Route 318 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 20, 2011Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Maryland Route 318/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: — PCB 00:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Perhaps a link for Hynson. In the route description two consecutive sentences start with "state highway". In the history around 6 consecutive sentences start with "MD 319/8". Vary word usage.
    There is no article for Hynson, so I am not going to add a wikilink. I fixed the consecutive "state highway" references in the Route description. I rearranged and merged a few sentences and replaced a reference to MD 319 with "state highway" in the History; let me know if there is any confusion in my attempt to vary usage.  V 13:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  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):  
    Picture looks a little blurry, but you don't need to fix that.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Putting article on hold for minor issues.
    Thank you for your review, PCB.  V 13:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
    Passed. — PCB 14:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply