Talk:Interstate 68/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

---

Article is comprehensive and generally well-written. Just a couple of issues that can easily be fixed as detailed below.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   There are a few minor awkward sentence structures and comma usage errors that I will fix myself after a final pass.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Remove hard-coded image sizes per WP:MOSIMAGE.

   Changed.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   The three sentences in History: (1) "The construction of Corridor E, which was also designated as U.S. Route 48, took over twenty years and hundreds of millions of dollars to complete."; (2) "At the time, there were no freeways along the corridor, though construction on the Cumberland Thruway began that year."; and (3) "The Cumberland Thruway was extended to U.S. Route 220 and then to Vocke Road (Maryland Route 658) by 1970.", appear to be unsourced or the specific information is not in the listed citation.

   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:

   The paragraph in the History section beginning with "In the 1960s,..." appears to be unsourced. The citation seems to apply only to the last sentence of that paragraph. Also, in the exit list, the signage for Exit 43A is not consistent with the corresponding text in the route description.

   I've added citations to that paragraph, and User:Bmpowell has fixed the exit list issue.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Major aspects are discussed well. I would suggest mentioning in the lead though that US 40 overlaps I-68 for a good portion of the road.

   I've added a mention of the US 40 overlap, as well as the US 219 and US 220 overlaps.

   B. Focused:

   Level of detail in information is generally good. It would be better, though, to clarify a few things: (1) What happened to the US 48 designation after it was renumbered to I-68? Was it used elsewhere? (2) "with U.S. Route 48 being opened to Maryland Route 36 in Frostburg" — we should clarify from what point the road was opened. (3) Can we mention what the signed control cities on the highway are?

   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...)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Would it be possible to not use "miracle cure"? Did anyone really claim at the time that the highway would become such? Also, the phrase "in some regards, this has succeeded" is kind of weasely. We need to say in more specifically in what regard success was measured.

   I've reworded this paragraph.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Fixes required are just a few additional references for some statements in the history section, some clarifications and wording changes as described in items 3 and 4 above, and a few minor grammar fixes, which would be easier to fix myself (so I will do that after all the fixes are made). Article is on hold until the fixes are made. --Polaron

   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)