# Talk:U.S. Route 220 in Maryland

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 220 in Maryland/GA1. 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)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
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)