Talk:Pennsylvania Route 232/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I shall be reviewing this article. No one should have to wait two months for a GAN. :) ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose/MOS review

Introduction

"The northern terminus is at PA 32 in the borough of New Hope, Bucks County on the banks of the Delaware River." - needs comma. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added comma. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In Wrightstown Township, PA 232 enters rural areas and becomes Windy Bush Road at the PA 413 intersection, continuing north to New Hope." - sloppy. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

"The Oxford Circle is a modified traffic circle with the express lanes of the Roosevelt Boulevard passing under the circle and the local lanes running through it with signalized access." - this is confusing. Please reword it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Upon reaching Har Nebo Cemetery, the route turns north through areas of homes and businesses and passes to the east of Naval Support Activity Philadelphia." - areas is getting redundant. May I suggest a synonym like locations? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed word. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"At this point, Oxford Avenue forks to the right to head northeast at the intersection with Robbins Street/Martins Mill Road." - does it fork to the northeast at Robbins Street or the previosly mentioned Naval Support Activity Philadelphia? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified by rewording. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The route continues into spread-out areas of residential development predomionated by trees as it briefly forms the border between Lower Moreland Township to the west and Bryn Athyn to the east before fully entering Lower Moreland Township again." - too long and sloopy. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"PA232 crosses County Line Road and enters Bucks County in Upper Southampton Township." - through Upper Southampton Township? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "enters Upper Southhampton Township, Bucks County". Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the PA 332 junction, the road narrows back to two lanes and passes more residential areas." - "back" is unnecessary. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed word. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

"What is now PA 232 in Montgomery County was originally chartered in 1846 as the Fox Chase and Huntingdon Valley Turnpike, a turnpike that connected the Fox Chase area and ran through eastern Montgomery County to County Line Road at the Bucks County border." - shorten this please, or break into two sentences. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Split into two sentences. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Second Street Pike continued the Huntington Pike north from the Montgomery County to border to Wrightstown in Bucks County and served as a route for farmers into Philadelphia." - what border? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified it was Bucks/Montgomery border. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Second Street Pike continued the Huntington Pike north from the border of Montgomery and Bucks counties to Wrightstown in Bucks County and served as a route for farmers into Philadelphia." - Should the spelling here be "Huntington" or "Huntingdon"? I was about to correct it, but I don't want to mess with a historical usage. RSLitman (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference review

Reference no. 1 is incomplete. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not add the reference to the article, so I do not have access to the information. The reference was added by User:JohnnyAlbert10, who is not active on Wikipedia. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's no excuse. Either locate the book and page and cite correctly, or use the tool at Google Maps. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since I do not have access to the Delorme tool, I have replaced the mileage source with Google. Dough 48 72 20:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who publishes the ADC maps? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher of the map is Langenschiedt, but {{cite map}} calls for the publisher parameter to use "The distributor/branding of the map.", so ADC Map is appropriate for the field here. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Howard Page did not publish and write ref no. 9. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed author parameter from reference. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depth review

You have several sentences that say "by ... the road was ..." No exact years? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The years for these dates are taken from the resources that are available. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Find better resources, then. http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA201-250.html has some exact dates, but it's not reliable. Pennsylvania publishes maps every year, if I recall correctly. Find the 1928 and 1936 maps. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A Google image search for a 1928 and 1936 road map did not yield any relevant results, and I do not have road maps from these years. Unfortunately, PennDOTs site does not have maps from either of those years. As a matter of fact, PennDOT officials have even suggested using PAHighways for highway history, even though that violates WP:SPS. There are several other good articles such as M-59 (Michigan highway) that use approximate dates for historical events. Dough 48 72 20:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This road crosses over several bridges, right? You can find information on them at the National Bridge Inventory http://nationalbridges.com/ ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the bridges would not be notable enough to mention in this article. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? You couldn't just mention when it was built and the status of the bridge right now? This would probably work in both the description section or the history section. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added some pertinent information from the NBI. Dough 48 72 20:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality review

No neutrality concerns. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review

No stability concerns. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

This road needs a map. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maps are not a requirement for GA. At the time, WP:USRD/MTF/R has a backlog for map requests. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Fox Chase.jpg should be deleted, there is the same image at commons. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would need an administrator to delete the local copy of the image. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. Dough 48 72 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I am passing as good article! ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]