Talk:Interstate 68/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I will be reviewing this article and hope to have comments around Wed or Thu. --Polaron | Talk 17:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * Changed.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * For 1)I've added a citation to the Maryland Roads article which mentions the years that the construction occurred in and the cost of the construction. For 2), I had thought the Maryland Roads article mentioned that explicitly, but after rereading it, it doesn't say it outright, so I cited it to a map from that time period which shows the lack of freeways in the area. For 3) Oops: I had the citations for it, but forgot to add them when I was putting in the code for the citations. They're added in now.
 * C. No original research:
 * I've added citations to that paragraph, and User:Bmpowell has fixed the exit list issue.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * I've added a mention of the US 40 overlap, as well as the US 219 and US 220 overlaps.
 * B. Focused:
 * For 1) I've added a paragraph to the "Designation as Interstate 68" section mentioning the past and current uses of the US 48 designation. For 2) I've clarified that sentence and another later in the paragraph with the same problem. For 3) I've added the control cities (and according to MDSHA, contrary to the signs on the actual road, Frostburg is not a control city...)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I've reworded this paragraph.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I've addressed the issues you brought up. If I missed anything, please tell me. Thank you for the review. - Algorerhythms (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the changes and confirmed that all the issues have been addressed. I've also made some minor copyediting. With the changes, I think this article passes the GA criteria easily. Excellent work on the article. --Polaron | Talk 16:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I've addressed the issues you brought up. If I missed anything, please tell me. Thank you for the review. - Algorerhythms (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the changes and confirmed that all the issues have been addressed. I've also made some minor copyediting. With the changes, I think this article passes the GA criteria easily. Excellent work on the article. --Polaron | Talk 16:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I've addressed the issues you brought up. If I missed anything, please tell me. Thank you for the review. - Algorerhythms (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the changes and confirmed that all the issues have been addressed. I've also made some minor copyediting. With the changes, I think this article passes the GA criteria easily. Excellent work on the article. --Polaron | Talk 16:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the changes and confirmed that all the issues have been addressed. I've also made some minor copyediting. With the changes, I think this article passes the GA criteria easily. Excellent work on the article. --Polaron | Talk 16:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)