Talk:U.S. Route 220 in Maryland/GA1

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

Reviewer: –Grondemar 00:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This is in general a good article, but it needs a few things corrected before I will promote it formally to GA status:


 * There are no images in the article, except for the map. Is it possible to take a couple of pictures of notable places on the route?
 * The Reports of the State Roads Commission of Maryland are all deadlinks. Please review and replace the link if possible.
 * In the Future section, please clarify what a "streetscape improvement project" is.
 * In the junction list, the mileage jumps from 18.86 to 42.32 to 23.58. I guess this is because the road runs along I-68, and that is the Interstate's mileage, but could you consider putting either the US 220 or the I-68 mileage in parentheses under the other mileage.  I think that would be significantly less confusing.

Two other things that will not impact GA status:


 * I made several copyedits; please review and make sure I did not distort or change the meaning of the sources.
 * For future articles, you might consider using list-defined references, where the sources are listed at the end of the article in the references section instead of at first use in the wikitext. I have found using LDR makes articles significantly easier to copyedit.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Article will be on hold for seven days waiting improvements.
 * 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:
 * Article will be on hold for seven days waiting improvements.
 * Article will be on hold for seven days waiting improvements.

Thanks. –Grondemar 03:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review. To address your concerns:


 * I live far away from this highway, so I would not be able to take a few pictures of it in a timely manner. Besides, images are not required for a Good Article.
 * I fixed all of the deadlinks in the references. On your suggestion, I implemented list-defined references.  I like how they work, so I will probably use them in the future in other articles.
 * A streetscape improvement involves stuff like putting in traffic calming features, building brick sidewalks, and other construction that makes a road more pleasant for pedestrians. Based on how inconsequential such an improvement is compared to a new bridge or a new alignment, I decided to remove that project from the Future section.
 * I replaced the I-68 mileage with US 220 mileage. Let me know if the Junction list is still confusing. Viridiscalculus (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good now. Thanks for the improvements.  This GA nomination is officially  passed.  Congratulations! –Grondemar 01:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)