Maryland Route 410 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 3, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed April 3, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

U.S. Roads: State highways / Maryland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Topics   U.S. state highways   Locations   Maryland   This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it. This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists. This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it. Article recognition:   This article was the selected article of the Maryland Roads portal in July 2013.

There are about 15 intersections in the infobox... anyone want to make a junction list for this one? -- Onore Baka Sama ( talk) 02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I completely rewrote this article to a higher standard, adding a junction list (a month ago), a more significant lead, a comprehensive route description, history, and lots of citations. I created the article in my userspace, then transferred it to the page in article space once I was done.

I intend to request a reassessment. I also intend to nominate this page for GA status after it is reassessed. If you have any suggestions on how this article can be improved or how I should go about a similar process in the future, please do not hesitate to offer your ideas. Viridiscalculus ( talk) 22:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maryland Route 410/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 ( talk) 21:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

This article is nice, but it needs some work to pass as a GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS):

   1a. The infobox and the junction list use the {{ jct}} template which abbreviates to MD ##. The lead sentence should have "(MD 410)" added after "Maryland Route 410" to introduce this convention. This abbreviation can also be used by way of the "pipe trick" for wikilinks in the article.The same can be done for the first time a US Route is mentioned, putting (US ##) after it, then using the abbreviation throughout.
   1b. Just a minor quibble, but I would suggest that all but East–West Highway is removed from the alternate names in the infobox. Listing them all clutters the infobox.
   The en dash is missing in the name in the infobox, and the rest of the article should have the hyphens "-" replaced with en dashes "–". Other situations that fail the guidelines in MOS:DASH are "Bethesda-Silver Spring". This example should have the en dash, and it should be spaced because of the space in "Silver Spring"
   The shields in the notes column of the junction list should be erased, and the destinations unlinked. alternately, they can be combined, à la:
   MD 390 (16th Street) to MD 97 – Wheaton, Washington by way of {{jct|state=MD|MD|390|MD|97|to2=to|name1=16th Street|city1=Wheaton}}, [[Washington, D.C.|]] The MD 97 shield can be dropped as well by using the noshield2=y parameter if you'd prefer.
   The junctions with streets in the list that aren't formatted using {{ jct}} need their hyphens swapped for en dashes to match the output of the template.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Ref 7 needs an accessdate.
   There is overlinking in the references section. The first reference published by MSHA is all that needs a link to the MSHA article, the rest can be unlinked.
   While not a requirement, you might consider switching the ISO-format dates to full Month ##, #### format.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I'll be a bit blunt here. I haven't read the RD, nor do I plan to at the moment. It is approaching the length of the RD in M-28 (Michigan highway), which covers a 290-mile long highway. The sheer size of this RD indicates to me that there's just too much detail covered, and that this article isn't using summary style. Sometimes, less is more.

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):

   The cities don't need to be wikilinked in the captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   At this point, I can't support passing the article. I think it will take longer than a week to fix the issues. There are minor prose issues, minor MOS issues and other minor formatting issues. If that were all, I'd hold this article. The fact remains that there is way too much text and detail in the RD section, so much that it has to be divided by county and then again by city. There are feature articles on longer highways with shorter RD sections. Please summarize the information, and renominate. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 21:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maryland Route 410/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – Grondemar 16:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

It looks like everything from the first GA review was closed out. I made some minor copyedits but otherwise have no concerns.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   GA PASS. Congratulations! – Grondemar 16:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC) reply

What is the proper spelling of the name East West Highway? The Maryland SHA highway references and official transportation map at marylandroads.com leave the name unpunctuated. Signs along the road, meanwhile, are inconsistent -- most I've seen are unpunctuated, but I've seen a few with a hyphen or dash between the "East" and "West."