Talk:Maryland Route 170/GA1
In this article we will explore the impact that Talk:Maryland Route 170/GA1 has had on different aspects of today's society. From its influence on interpersonal relationships to its relevance in the global economy, Talk:Maryland Route 170/GA1 has left a significant mark on the modern world. Through analysis of various studies and research, we will examine how Talk:Maryland Route 170/GA1 has shaped the way we live, work, and relate to others. In addition, we will reflect on the role that Talk:Maryland Route 170/GA1 plays in the future and how its presence will continue to reinvent and transform different areas of our daily lives.
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 04:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I will review this article sometime this weekend. It's the least I could do since you reviewed K-17. –TCN7JM 04:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Lead
- I can't see any errors here. Great job.
Route description
- "a two-lane road with a center turn lane..." There are two instances of this without the article.
- Geez...you really proofread your articles.
- Proofreading is what I do in my day job. VC 01:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
History
- "14-foot (4.3 m) wide" should be "14-foot-wide (4.3 m)," as should all other similar instances.
- I think I caught all of them. Point out any I missed. VC 01:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- "The highway was constructed from the corner in the Camp Meade Road in Severn south to Evergreen Road in 1932 and 1933." This sentence confused me at first. I'd advise changing the first in to on.
- I changed "corner" to "right-angle turn." Does that solve the problem? VC 01:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- "to a point north of Old Mill Road in 1936." Consider putting citations in numeric order.
- Should there not be a sentence that explains that the highway has not changed since 1999?
- I rarely use a sentence like that because it is very difficult to prove a negative. VC 01:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There are no errors with the remaining two sections as far as I can tell. –TCN7JM 05:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The references are fine. I can't really say much about some of them because they're archived all the way over in Maryland. –TCN7JM 19:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- All of the references are online. I can point you to them if necessary. However, this is not FAC, so it should not be necessary. Thank you for your review. VC 01:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Final verdict
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Only one image, and it's fine.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall: Just the few errors.
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- My concerns have been addressed. I'll pass the article. –TCN7JM 03:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)