Talk:U.S. Route 219 in Maryland

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 219 in Maryland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --PCB 01:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   What dragged this whole thing from an instant pass was the continued use of the term "speed limit" in the route description. Try to find a different word or omit this information altogether, it is not crucial, either.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Is Reference 10 (Svirsky) an self-published source? I'm pretty sure it is. If it is not a reliable source, omit the reference or find a replacement.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   It would be nice if there were a picture, but this is not required.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am putting this article on hold for several small problems, as mentioned above.

I've made a few addition edits to the article myself. When rendering the abbreviation of a highway in boldface, the parentheses should not be in bold. When manually rendering junctions (i.e. without templates or without using the city parameters in the templates) then there should be a non-breaking space before the en dash. The notes column of the junction need not have the termini indicated, especially when the are not the termini of the whole highway, just the state line crossings. In fact the notes should mention that it is the state line. I haven't done it, but there should be non-breaking spaces substituted throughout the article in between a US and a number when the abbreviations are used. The templates do this automatically, but the prose doesn't. The same convention goes for Maryland state highways.

I agree that the speed limits are superfluous details that don't need to be included. The National Bridge Inventory isn't an SPS, so it's fine. (The "author" in this case should be removed from the citation though. See Minnesota State Highway 610 for a GA where the NBI is used as a source.) I would prefer a direct link to the bridge's listing in the NBI though. Ref 6 shouldn't link to the USGS again. It is already linked in Ref 5. If you're linking publishers, please do so consistently. MSHA in Ref 1, MSRC in Ref 4, Arcadia Publishing in Ref 14, PennDOT in Ref 24 should all be linked. (If the MSRC is a predecessor of MSHA, you can either create a redirect to the MSHA article, or pipe the link in the article.)

Do all of the auxiliary routes have redirects to this article? They should if they don't, and if they don't, they shouldn't be in boldface text at all. The formation year should probably have a citation in the infobox. Just some food for thought. Imzadi 1979 → 09:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess I didn't go through the article extremely thoroughly. Thanks for the comments. --PCB 22:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the speed limits, added non-breaking spaces, fixed the MOS:BOLD and linking issues, and split the NBI references. Please review again. Viridiscalculus (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking good. --PCB 02:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on U.S. Route 219 in Maryland. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://us219.com/south/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Business loop name

I don't think calling it the Grantsville business loop is appropriate. Besides the fact its about 3 miles east of Grantsville, calling it the "Grantsville" business loop implies it passes through central Grantsville, which it doesn't come anywhere close to doing. Perhaps "Chestnut Ridge" business loop would be a more appropriate name. Famartin (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I referred to it as the Grantsville business loop since it is the nearest town and the mailing address for the area. However, I would not be opposed if you changed it to the Chestnut Ridge business loop. Dough4872 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)