Talk:U.S. Route 322 in New Jersey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
few spots where the prose or jargon is unclear
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

Gloucester county:
- "Upon entering New Jersey, County Route 536, forms a concurrent, which lasts to Williamstown." is jargonish. Suggest "Upon entering New Jersey, the highway runs concurently with County Route 536 until Williamstown."
  - Reworded. ---Dough 48 72 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before 1953:
- ".. a route that was to connect Penns Grove to Atlantic City." Did it or was it only planned? If it was only planned you need to make this clearer, if it did indeed connect, you need to make the phrase "... a route that connected Penns Grove to Atlantic City."
  - Clarified. ---Dough 48 72 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "As a result of the creation of the U.S. Highway System in 1926, U.S. Route 40 was designated along with Route 18S." Designated what? this sentence makes no sense to me.
  - Reworded. ---Dough 48 72 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing:
- Is http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/images/1927_routes.gif a copyright violation?
- Likewise on http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/maps/1927tt2.jpg?

That's not the writer's fault here. We can remove the link, we're still citing the same map from 1927.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it is the writer's fault. If the map is out of copyright (and in this case, it'd have to have been renewed to still be copyrighted, so check here and here) but if it's not renewed, it's great to link to. I don't want to automatically nuke the link, so am checking if it's in copyright or not. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - The first map is from the State of New Jersey and the second is a Tydol Trails map. I would assume the authors are not violating any copyright laws. If they do, the links can simply be removed. ---Dough4872 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that anything printed after 1923 in the US with a copyright notice is copyrighted, and we do not link to copyright violations. The wrinkle here is that stuff from 1924-1976 (? somewhere in there) must be renewed to still be in copyright. Since these maps are from 1927, someone would have needed to renew the copyright on them. You can, yes, simply remove the links, but in order to keep them, you can't just assume that the site isn't doing a copyright violation, you need to show that they aren't, by searching in the two databases I linked to above. I think the links do add informative value, but we can't just assume that they are not copyright violations. For what its worth, I do believe they aren't, simply because it's unlikely that osmeone would have renewed copyright on an out of date map, but you cannot just assume that here on Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/US-322_NJ/ a reliable source?
  - The author cites his sources and has been mentioned in the media [1]. ---Dough 48 72 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few concerns over prose and the sourcing. 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 15:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. ---Dough 48 72 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean the article is ready to pass? ---Dough 48 72 15:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting on the status of the links above. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the map links with the questionable copyright status? I tried searching the databases, but could not get results. If you want me to, I can remove the links to the two maps. ---Dough 48 72 16:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please, and then it'll be ready to go. I hate to lose them, but we shouldn't be linking to even the slightest questionable copyright status. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have delinked them. ---Dough 48 72 17:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]