Talk:New Jersey Route 72/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
just a few spots where the prose isn't clear
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

General:
- No need to link any thing twice in this short of an article. Any thing linked in the lead doesn't need linked in the body of this article....
  - Done. ---Dough 48 72 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
- Jargon "Upon interchanging..." your average reader is not going to have the faintest clue what that means.
  - Reworded. ---Dough 48 72 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Route:
- "The road intersects CR 20 and CR 6 before it passes to the north of the Beach Haven West residential development and heads near wetlands." Heads near wetlands is awkward here and unclear as to what is meant. Do you mean "passes near"?
  - Fixed. ---Dough 48 72 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History:
- When was a freeway proposed for the route 72 corridor?
  - It was in the late 1960s, it says it in the next sentence. ---Dough4872 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - May I suggest that you make it clearer in the first sentence when this was, otherwise the reader is left kinda drifting until the next sentence. Perhaps "In the 1960s, a freeway was proposed for the Route 72 corridor. This freeway was planned to run from the Four Mile Circle ..." This has the advantage of keeping the chronology straight, as the way it's worded now it could suggest that the original proposal of the freeway was connected with the events in the previous paragraph. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fixed. ---Dough 48 72 17:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing:
- What makes http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/images/1927_routes.gif a reliable source for the map? Is the map out of copyright, because if it's not, we're linking to a copyright violation which we should not do.
  - It appears the map is a scan from the State of New Jersey's official plan for the 1927 renumbering. ---Dough 48 72 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Current ref 16 needs a publisher and last access date.
  - Fixed. ---Dough 48 72 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above changes. ---Dough 48 72 17:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]