Talk:Maryland Route 30/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) 04:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RJL, infobox, sources fine, no deadlinks.
Dablinks fine, but one circular redirect. --Rs chen 7754 04:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I corrected the Maryland Route 30 Business redirect to redirect to the blurb in the Related routes section. V C 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images fine, though GIS sources will need to be added at ACR for the map. Stability good. --Rs chen 7754 04:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

NHS should really go in the RD. --Rs chen 7754 04:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a particular reason the NHS sentence should go in the RD? V C 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Typically citations don't go in the lead. --Rs chen 7754 00:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I typically put the NHS sentence in the Lead when I do not have an RD mini-lead or I am able to integrate it well into the RD. In my experience, having that citation in the lead has not been a problem at GAN. V C 00:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RD

"of the Gunpowder Falls river" would make things more clear. --Rs chen 7754 05:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer to keep it as is because (1) there is a Gunpowder River that the "falls" flows into before the flow reaches the Chesapeake Bay, (2) "Gunpowder Falls river" sounds awkward, and (3) there is a wikilink. V C 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

What is a macadam road?
- I wikilinked the term. V C 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of contamination?
- Ground water contamination from chemicals. Should I be more specific, such as which chemicals were discovered in the ground water? V C 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ground water contamination would be better. --Rs chen 7754 00:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I added "groundwater" and a wikilink. V C 00:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"needed to be changed again" -> was changed? (2x)
- Removed "needed to be" from both spots. V C 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not following what you're getting at with the Democrat/Republican issue.
- The sentiment in Carroll County is that state road projects in the county were put on the back burner by the state, which had Democratic governors for a few decades, in favor of projects in more Democratic counties. The Democrats typically also are more in favor of spending transportation funds on mass transit, while Republicans favor roads. I am not sure if this is something you personally do not understand or you think I should explain better for the benefit of other readers. V C 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be clarified - I thought it was something different. --Rs chen 7754 00:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I added the following sentence: "Local sentiment was that the county was relatively neglected and did not get its fair share of state highway funding for close to 40 years." The sentence is supported by the same reference. Is that good or should I clarify some more? V C 20:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
is included neither - awkward phrasing. --Rs chen 7754 08:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed "included" from the phrase. Does that solve the problem? V C 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should be fine. --Rs chen 7754 00:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auxiliary routes

four-leg roundabout? --Rs chen 7754 04:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I change to "four-legged"? Should I use a different term to denote the roundabout has four branches? V C 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Upon second thought, it doesn't seem so bad. --Rs chen 7754 00:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this on hold for fixes. --Rs chen 7754 08:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, rschen7754. V C 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passing. --Rs chen 7754 21:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]