![]() | Maryland Route 198 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. Review: July 28, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't see why the attention-elg tag was removed. This exit list should be cleaned up, and that's why I tagged it; I wasn't going to get around to it immediately at the time and I wanted to know which ones I planned to clean up. — Onore Baka Sama( speak | stalk) 03:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Nbound ( talk · contribs) 22:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
New Prose quality rating: -- 00:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Factually accurate and
verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Reflects a
neutral point of view?:
5. Reasonably stable?
6. Illustrated by
images, when possible and appropriate?:
(Ideally the article could be improved by images of the roadway itself, this is not required to meet the GAC)
Overall:
No Longer on hold, Pass or Fail: Pass -
Nbound (
talk)
00:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Maryland Route 198 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. Review: July 28, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't see why the attention-elg tag was removed. This exit list should be cleaned up, and that's why I tagged it; I wasn't going to get around to it immediately at the time and I wanted to know which ones I planned to clean up. — Onore Baka Sama( speak | stalk) 03:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Nbound ( talk · contribs) 22:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
New Prose quality rating: -- 00:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Factually accurate and
verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Reflects a
neutral point of view?:
5. Reasonably stable?
6. Illustrated by
images, when possible and appropriate?:
(Ideally the article could be improved by images of the roadway itself, this is not required to meet the GAC)
Overall:
No Longer on hold, Pass or Fail: Pass -
Nbound (
talk)
00:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)