Talk:Maryland Route 346/GA1

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

DABs and ELs are good.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Just a few minor comments below really. Overall, the prose meet expectations.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I have some specific thoughts on the references below, but nothing that prevents listing as a GA
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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):
 * It would be nice if you had photos, but we all know that goes. You might want to ping Algorerhythms about supplying the GIS source he used to create File:Maryland Route 346 map.png, but since I know he used GIS to make it, I won't hold up the review for that.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * While the article overall meets the criteria, there's just two basic fixes to make. I've also included some comments on some things not related to the GA criteria for as food for thought.  Imzadi 1979  →   14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * While the article overall meets the criteria, there's just two basic fixes to make. I've also included some comments on some things not related to the GA criteria for as food for thought.  Imzadi 1979  →   14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Prose comments
 * "U.S. Route 50 Business (US 50 Business)" should probably abbreviate Business as Bus. to match what's in the infobox.
 * I prefer to keep Business spelled out in the text. There is no need to abbreviate the word in running prose. Abbreviation is a greater concern in the more limited space of the infobox or Junction list, which are more akin to tables.  V C  19:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And the Bus.=Business connection isn't spelled out anywhere in the article. If a reader misses the period (which isn't that uncommon) they'd read "Bus" in the infobox and junction list. Yes, this has been an issue before with non-American readers of US highway articles.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to disagree because I still do not think this needs to be changed. Both instances of Bus. are in links outside of prose. If the user is confused and cannot put two and two together by reading the prose, they can click on the links and have their confusion resolved.  V C  02:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the beginning of the history, the constant repetition of "state road" gets a little old. Can you find an appropriate synonym or pronoun to break it up a bit?
 * I diversified the references to "state road."  V C  19:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In using "Salisbury–Ocean City road", I just want to clarify that this isn't supposed to be a proper noun. (Based on the RD, I assume it isn't.) Either way, since "Ocean City" has an internal space, the en dash should be spaced as well.
 * You are correct, it is not a proper noun. I spaced the en dash.  V C  19:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reference thoughts
 * Some of the citations have dated editions, some have dates, and some even have both. It's my suggestion that you consider always listing a publication date, even if it duplicates the edition. Doing so just keeps everything consistent in that a reader can expect the publication date to be listed always. The publication date and the edition may not always line up. (Some maps might be the 2003–04 edition published in 2003 but the 1912–15 edition of a government report wouldn't be published until 1915.)
 * Corporately authored works can use an author of either "Staff" or the name of the entity that prepared it.
 * When there is a range of years, you should drop the century number when it's the same (1912–15, not 1912–1915). That's the guidance on dates from the MOS.
 * Per the MOS now, only retrieval dates can be in the YYY-MM-DD format, so footnote 14 needs to be fixed.
 * I changed the published date to the American spelled out format in ref 14.  V C  02:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since we're going to agree to disagree on the one point, and the others are MOS date-related items that don't impact GA status (but would impact A-Class or FA status), I'm passing the article now.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)