# Talk:Maryland Route 198

I don't see why the attention-elg tag was removed.  This exit list should be cleaned up, and that's why I tagged it; I wasn't going to get around to it immediately at the time and I wanted to know which ones I planned to clean up.  —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 03:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maryland Route 198/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Nbound (talk · contribs) 22:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This article was nominated for good article status. The review began on July 21, 2013. Below is an evaluation of the article, according to the  six good article criteria.
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Intermodal should be replaced with another word and link, intermodal refers to two different types (modes) of transport, rather than variations of the same one.
"Intermodal connector" in this case means the route connects a freeway (I-95) with a train station (Muirkirk). In this case, MD 198 is part of the connection; US 1 is the other part of the connection. Should I mention the train station (it is several miles south of MD 198) or is that too much detail?  VC  01:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
"MD 198 is a part of the National Highway System as an intermodal connector between Interstate 95 (I-95) and US 1 in Laurel" -> MD 198 is part of the National Highway System and is classified as an intermodal connector due to its role as part a of series of connecting roads between Interstate 95 and Muirkirk railway station. (or similar)
Given that it isnt mentioned elsewhere in the prose (IIRC) this should actually be moved out of the lead and worked in elsewhere. -- Nbound (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I moved the National Highway System part to the second paragraph of the Route description.  VC  19:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 Done - more undestandable and better positioning -- Nbound (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The description of the intersection with US29 is a little confusing
Can you explain what parts you find confusing? I am not sure if you are confused by it or you understand it but the prose could be confusing to someone unfamiliar with the subject.  VC  01:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, its listed as a diamond interchange but the prose only deals with a single intersection (rather than presumably a pair of them - Unless its a SPUI), the southbound onramp/entry appears described well, but the northbound sounds a little odd, for what I am assuming is a standard offramp/exit. -- Nbound (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I rewrote the part concerning the interchange. Does it make sense now?  VC  01:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 Done - reads a fair bit better now -- Nbound (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
What's a "macadam road"?
I wikilinked the term macadam.  VC  01:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 Done - We don't actually use that term here so I had to look it up during the review :) -- Nbound (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
New Prose quality rating:  -- 00:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Manual of Style compliance: 
Appears to meet basic MOS requirements

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
All major road article aspects covered
Focused: 
The history section is a little verbose, listing (it appears) every small change, but not outrageously so.

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
Appears to be neutral

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
Edit history speaks for itself

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
(Ideally the article could be improved by images of the roadway itself, this is not required to meet the GAC)

Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  On Hold pending prose issues, otherwise seems to meet the GA criteria 
Thank you for your review, Nbound.  VC  01:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
@Viridiscalculus: - Questions responded to. -- Nbound (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
No Longer on hold, Pass or Fail:  Pass - Nbound (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a reassessment. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply renominate it.
The word "intermodal" is now replaced with simple notice that the highway provides access between US 1 and I-95.  The Federal Highway Administration classifies MD 198 as an intermodal connector [1] because it permits transportation between the Muirkirk rail station and I-95, though such explanation is probably too detailed for the lead section and unnecessary. —ADavidB 00:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me ADavidB, but I am the nominator on this GAN and I do not appreciate you jumping in and making changes like that. I have reverted your edit because it adversely changes the meaning of the sentence. If you want to offer suggestions, you may do so here.  VC  01:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
GA nomination doesn't convey article ownership.  I fully explained the change, and based on commentary above, it seems the reviewer agrees the lead isn't a place to get into intermodal transportation. —ADavidB 07:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)