Talk:Old Baltimore Pike

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Old Baltimore Pike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Will review. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

review

Mostly wording suggestions

• per Mos:Slashes, Delaware/Maryland should be Delaware–Maryland.

• Fixed. Dough4872 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• "near Newark, Delaware east to Christiana" - does this mean near Newark, Delaware (on the east side) or that from Newark it goes east to Christiana.

• Clarified. Dough4872 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• The road is mainly paralleled by Interstate 95 (I-95, Delaware Turnpike) to the north and U.S. Route 40 (US 40, Pulaski Highway) to the south. - do you mean these two roads are the main roads that paralled Old Baltimore Pike (although others do also)?

• Fixed. Dough4872 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• "The road was first built by 1720" - I like the wording you used below better as less awkward: "The Old Baltimore Pike was built before 1720."

• Changed. Dough4872 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• "past more residential subdivisions" and "through more suburban areas" - "more", "more" - repetitious

• Fixed. Dough4872 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Past this intersection, Old Baltimore Pike continues past" - many "past"s

• Changed. Dough4872 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• "It then crosses a Norfolk Southern railroad line encounters DE 72." - a word left out?

• Fixed. Dough4872 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• "come to", "comes to" - can wording be varied?

• Fixed. Dough4872 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• "The road serves as a major connection between Philadelphia and Baltimore" - shouldn't this be mentioned in the lede also?

• Mentioned. Dough4872 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• link Welsh Tract?

• Linked. Dough4872 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• "would be incorporated in 1813" - was incorporated

"*Changed. Dough4872 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Old Baltimore Pike comes to a junction with DE 273 in a wooded area. Following this, the road narrows back to two lanes and heads into the community of Christiana." (suggestion) Old Baltimore Pike reaches a junction with DE 273 in a wooded area. Then the road narrows to two lanes again and heads into the community of Christiana.

• Changed. Dough4872 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• It would be easier to read if there were a couple of paragraphs in section that a big wall of text.

• Split some paragraphs. Dough4872 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything else is fine.

• I made an edit that you're free to change.[1]
• Will place on hold

MathewTownsend (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I have replied to the above comments. Dough4872 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

reply

I don't know. It's difficult to figure out the dates. It seems that in the 1700s it served as a "major connection between Philadelphia and Baltimore". Is that right? If so, it should be clarified in the lede. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It was the main road between the two cities roughly from the 18th century until state roads came about in the 20th century. It is hard to pin down exact dates, so I simply said "in the past". Dough4872 00:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• ok. I made another edit:[2] MathewTownsend (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!

Good work! MathewTownsend (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)