Talk:Maryland Route 615

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maryland Route 615/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk · contribs) 21:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Infobox

• No issues

Lead

• No issues

Route description

• No issues

History

• No issues

Junction list

• No issues

References

• Reference 12 → Dead link according to this

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put the article on hold at this time. I will give you the general seven days to fix the issue with the dead link above. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 22:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Rp0211. I have corrected the dead link.  VC  23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the issue has been addressed, I feel confident passing this article now. Keep up the good work! Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 22:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

This sentence is in the intro: "After I-70 was constructed east of Hancock in the early 1960s, MD 615 was extended along the old alignment of US 40 parallel to the new freeway." However, looking at the Hancock 1:24000 quad, 1968 reprint/overlay of the 1951 edition available at the USGS archive, it appears that east-west 615 was new construction while 40/National Road became the eastbound lanes of I-70. Mapsax (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The easy way to remove the dubious information is to rewrite the sentence so it does not provide dubious information. You can be bold and do that yourself if you want. The hard way is to use the sources and try to support the statement in the History section, then summarize that in the Lead.  VC  01:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure that I was interpreting things correctly, or that the USGS quad wasn't in error. Mapsax (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You are partially correct. Looking at the Hancock quad maps and the adjacent Cherry Run quad maps (1951 and 1972), it appears some parts of the original US 40 road became MD 615 but some parts were destroyed in the construction. I do not think we can claim parts of old US 40 became the eastbound lanes of I-70 or that I-70 was built parallel to old US 40; rather, part of old US 40 became MD 615 and parts of MD 615 parallel to I-70 were new construction.  VC  00:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)