Talk:Maryland Route 213/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a good article.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) * MD 213? mention what it means.
 * 2) **It's an abbreviation for "Maryland Route 213". – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) * Could you reword the following sentence? "The route is a two-lane undivided highway its entire length and passes through ..."
 * 4) * Also, the first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead is too detailed for the lead.
 * 5) * In the junction list, why the description of the 53.77 mile listed differently?
 * 6) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Could you look for the "Maryland Scenic Byways" Map on the Internet? I hope you find one...
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The "Route description" section is a little too detailed. The info on the number of vehicles is a little too much, in my opinion, but I'll let it slide.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * - Crzycheetah 00:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * - Crzycheetah 00:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * - Crzycheetah 00:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the route description is far too detailed. Traffic counts should be included within every paragraph or so, not every sentence. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied to the above changes. As for the format of 53.77 in the Junction list, it is compliant with the standards for water crossings per the WP:ELG. As for the Scenic Byways map, I cannot find the MDSHA equivalent online, I only have a hard copy. I am going to open a discussion at WT:USRD to discuss what to do with traffic counts. Dough4872 (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. I am going to leave this on hold for now due to the overabundance of traffic counts. I like Julian's suggestion of mentioning those numbers once in every paragraph.-- Crzycheetah 02:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the traffic counts per the discussion. Dough4872 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks better. I am passing this article.-- Crzycheetah 03:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)