Talk:New Jersey Route 79/GA1

GA Review

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

Initial comment

I will be reviewing this article. --Jameboy (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail criteria

I have reviewed the article against the quick-fail criteria:

The article appears to be well-referenced from reliable sources.
There do not appear to be any non-neutral or controversial statements.
There are no cleanup banners.
Checked history - no evidence of recent edit wars.
Article does not concern a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems here. I will therefore review the article in detail very soon. --Jameboy (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Overall the article is well-written and lacks any obvious major issues, so good work. I have checked all the links and have also made a few comments below. I have put the review on hold while these are addressed.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Couple of comments:

1) "passes through suburban residential areas with some rural areas of farms and woods" -- the with is a bit ambiguous: "passes through both suburban residential areas and rural areas" is perhaps better?
2) "Past this intersection, Route 79 continues north into farmland with some residences and businesses, with neighborhoods increasing along the road again." -- Could it be rephrased so there aren't two withs in the same sentence. This would make it clearer I think.

B. MoS compliance:
complies with WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, WP:JARGON, WP:AVOID, WP:EMBED. The WP:MOSFICT guideline is not applicable.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Fully referenced

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Has in-line citations where needed

C. No original research:
No evidence of OR
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Has the sorts of sections you would expect to see about a road: Route, History and Intersections

B. Focused:
The article is focused and summary sections are not required. Including the speed limits for every section of the road is possibly excessive detail though. Could the inclusion of speed limits be reduced to just those instances that are particularly significant (e.g. if the speed limit is particularly low or high, or if there is an accident blackspot or whatever)
I removed all the speed limits from the article. An editor had a concern with this on New Jersey Route 57, see the talk page. Dough4872 (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
The article remains neutral - no controversial or biased statements.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Checked history - article is stable with no evidence of edit wars.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Copyright status for map and photos seems in order. I'm a bit confused about the route number images though. For example, File:Circle sign 79.svg says "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it..." but it doesn't say who the copyright holder is (am I missing something here?)
SPUI made it, its in the {{self}} wrapper. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't pick up on that before, that seems fine though. --Jameboy (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Appropriate number of images for the length of article. Images have suitable captions.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold pending response to above comments

Thanks for the review. I have replied to the above changes. Dough4872 (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All comments addressed, promoting to Good Article, well done. If you have some time, please could you review one of the other nominated articles. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]