Talk:New Jersey Route 48/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- "It is a two-lane, undivided road its entire length that intersects with Interstate 295 and County Route 551." — change to "through its entire length" or "in its entire length". I'm not sure which is more correct, but this doesn't sound well.
- "It was moved off portions of the Route 48 alignment twice..." — reword, sounds a bit weird.
- Un-bold the road designations in "History" per MOS:BOLD.
- Can you please point out how are refs 4 and 6 reliable sources? Admiral Norton (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have gone back and made changes to the article. As for the bolded road designations, they are that way because they are redirects to the article. As for the sources, a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard states these sources seem to be okay to use. Dough4872 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good enough for me. I'm promoting this article. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have gone back and made changes to the article. As for the bolded road designations, they are that way because they are redirects to the article. As for the sources, a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard states these sources seem to be okay to use. Dough4872 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)