Talk:New Jersey Route 139/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- "The reason for this project is that the current viaducts are structurally obsolete" <-- To the normal reader, what does "structurally obsolete" mean? I know what it means, but if there is no link, it should be clarified. Also the sentence sounds weird.
- B. MoS compliance:
- You have the NJDOT linked in every citation. It should only be linked in the first use.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- A. Major aspects:
- Again I see summary style. The construction to retrofit Route 139 lacks the details of when the 12th and 14th Street Viaducts were constructed in the first place.
- Where is any mention of the New Jersey Route 139U designation?
- B. Focused:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- I think pics of the viaducts should be included, they are important.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Compared to Maryland Route 12, which i just reviewed, I see the major problem with both is its written in summary style, which is a no-no. We need full details. On hold, 7 days, the usual.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 13:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have replied to the above comments. As for both this article and MD 12, I am confused with the summary style issues and would also like to note there are not too many sources on the early history of the road. Do you think you can explicitly explain what needs to be done? As for the picture of the viaduct, I cannot find a suitable image on Flickr and I do not plan on traveling to Jersey City any time soon to get a picture. Dough4872 (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, 139 is a highly important route in Jersey City and such, I don't know how it lacks info on the viaduct, and I will tell you that adding the dates is not really sufficient. People are going to want to know when, why and how. MD 12 needs more details on proposed projects.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 18:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have added a little more information about the viaducts from what I can find. Dough4872 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I will AGF on this and pass it. But I think this should be expanded even further before A and FA.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 01:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have added a little more information about the viaducts from what I can find. Dough4872 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, 139 is a highly important route in Jersey City and such, I don't know how it lacks info on the viaduct, and I will tell you that adding the dates is not really sufficient. People are going to want to know when, why and how. MD 12 needs more details on proposed projects.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 18:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)