Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Maryland Route 36

The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was promote to A-Class. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 19:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Route 36 (4 net support votes)[edit]

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class

Nominator's comments: This article recently became a GA, and comments on how to improve it further would be very helpful.

Nominated by: Algorerhythms (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Come back with more references. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 02:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't strike me as a valid reason to oppose. What specifically in the article still needs to be referenced? -- Kéiryn (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I looked the article over a second time. Now it convinced me to support. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Commons images, references valid, overall good article. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments — I gave some feedback the other evening on IRC, but I'm here to do a full review tonight.
- I'm not sure the exact guideline here, but I was under the impression that only redirected article titles should be bolded in the lead. WP:LEAD doesn't seem clear to me on this, but I think the extra bolding should be removed.
  - Changed. "Mount Savage Road" and "Georges Creek Road" are no longer bolded.
- The instructions for {{infobox road}} say only to use an alternate name if the highway has one for the entire route. (Also, I know that the Maryland roads project prescribes a different template, unless there's a specific reason not to use it, {{infobox road}} probably should be used for consistency with other projects. )
  - I've switched it to infobox road, since infobox Maryland highway apparently doesn't support the counties option.
    - Infobox Maryland highway now supports the counties option, so since the MDRD editing guide specifies that template, I'll leave it as Infobox Maryland highway.
- Nice paring of the junctions in the infobox.
- I'm not sure that {{infobox Maryland highway}} supports it, but there are no county listings in the infobox like other USRD FAs/As.
  - The county listing has been added.
- This is a personal preference of mine, but when putting together an article, I've always felt it looks better if there's some text between a second and third level heading. That way it isn't the heading for "Route description" immediately followed by the first subheading. Maybe a few lines that summarize the whole section, like a mini-lead? Nothing I'd oppose promotion over, just a stylistic preference I have.

- - I added a bit of text so that the headings are separated.

- The referencing looks good after our IRC discussion on it. Good Job.
- You might want to abbreviate the linked text for other highway articles. Once you introduce a reader to the Maryland Route 36 (MD 36) convention, you can use that convention on all further references, much like newsstories use a person's last name on second and subsequent mentions. After all, they are all abbreviated that way in the junction list.
- In the Junction list, you abbreviate it as Alt US 40, but above in the text, it's always typed out as U.S. Route 40 Alternate. Once again, I'd abbreviate that in the prose for consistency.
- The coal mining explanation could be summarized a bit more. While it explains the Scenic Byway designation, it breaks up the flow of the article a bit too much.
  - It does break up the flow of the article. One thing I am considering is switching the first and second paragraphs in the history section, as the first paragraph is more closely related to the third paragraph than to the second paragraph, but I'll wait to see what you think of that before doing that.
    - Actually, you could move the coal mining stuff up into the route description. Yes, it is of an historical nature, but the name is a feature of the roadway. That would tie the historical stuff together better by eliminating the break in flow. (Also, I'd make a mention of MDSHA someplace up in the lead if it can be worked in so that the mention of MDSHA in that paragraph could be abbreviated. If not, at least put (MDSHA) after the mention so that the abbreviation in the infobox makes more sense.) Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I added a mention of MDSHA in the lead. I looked at moving the coal mining stuff into the route description, but it just didn't seem to fit.

- MD 831A and MD 831C are wikilinked in the junction list, but not in the prose above it like the other Maryland routes. Is there a reason? If not, they should be wikilinked in the prose as well.
  - I've changed this, though I'm considering changing it back, as it may be overlinking, since both the MD 831A and MD 831C links go to the MD 831 entry in the list of minor routes.
    - It wouldn't be overlinking exactly since if you're linking other highways, you should consistently link them all on first mention. If you're worried about the article looking like a "sea of blue", abbreviate the highways names. "Maryland" is a fairly long word to be repeated in every highway link every time when all of the highways mentioned are in the same state. Shortening them all to [[Maryland Route 831A|MD 831A]] will only produce MD 831A or equivalent for each link visually decreasing the amount of blue used in the text without breaking the links. You've already introduced the reader to that abbreviation convention up in the first sentence of the lead. It's like AP news stories using a person's last name on second and later mentions to save space.Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I've abbreviated "Maryland Route 831A" to "Route 831A" (and similarly for 831C). I'm sort of conflicted about using the "MD X" abbreviation in the text, as "Route X" seems to flow better in text. At the same time, MDSHA itself tends to prefer the "MD X" abbreviation, using it often on signs, which would lead to preference toward that abbreviation.

I look forward to seeing these really minor changes made and the promotion of this article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple things in your comments I haven't gotten to yet, but I'll wait until tomorrow to do so, since it's getting late. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a few followup comments and suggestions. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support — There are still some minor improvements I'd like to see made, like consistency in abbreviating routes. The county line in the infobox doesn't need the word "County" in the link. These are minor concerns, but the former will need to be cleared up before this article is taken to FAC. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Bolded text in the lead is generally used for alternate titles of the article that redirect to this page. As these are local names, not alternate titles, IMO, these should be italicized not bolded. see MOS:BOLD
- Changed.
There is some overlinking. As a rule of thumb, only link the first instance of a term, or in a long article only link the first instance of each section. U.S. 40 Alternate is wikilinked on almost every instance, Cumberland is also wikilinked multiple times in the same paragraph.
- I've removed some overlinking.
  - There's more, in the lead MDSHA is wikilinked twice. Georges Creek Valley is wikilinked twice in the Route description section. Also, Georges Creek Road is wikilinked on the 2nd mention in the Route description.
Ensure that phrases like "this is an old alignment of Route 36" and speed limit changes are sourced. Some of these are in paragraphs with one source at the end, ensure that source covers this information or include an additional source.
Cite 10 (examinar.com) is missing necessary information newspaper citations {{cite news}} should have name of publication and date of publication.
- Changed.
"joins U.S. Route 40 Alternate" two adjacent terms are wikilinked, this is generally discouraged. Re-write the sentence to avoid this situation, or de-link one of the terms.
Changed. I de-lined "joins".
"(though the route remains marked north/south)" I think this is a misuse of parenthesis, I think this should be with commas or dashes. But I'm not an english major, consider consulting a more competent editor.
- Changed.
"which connects it to Pennsylvania Route 160" sounds rough, suggest instead "which connects with Penn...."
- Changed.
"intersection,[6]," remove one of the commas.
- Changed.

Minor issues, easily fixable. More than happy to support once addressed. Dave (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, there is still some overlinking, which I've mentioned inline. Other than that looks good. One question, I was under the impression that the See Also section was for related articles not already linked in prose. Georges Creek Valley is linked in prose, is this appropriate? (I don't know, asking for others to chime in).Dave (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the overlinking you mentioned above, and I reworded the sentence where Georges Creek Road was wikilinked to make it clear that the link points to the article on the creek, not the road. - Algorerhythms (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Issues resolved to my satasfaction Dave (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.