Jump to content

Talk:U.S. Route 1/9/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

I am putting this article on hold

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This article is almost at GA level. Comments on the minus signs:

1a) The Union County section mentions crossing the Elizabeth River, then using a skyway. If the skyway crosses the river, the two sentences should be reworked. There are other minor issues I can go through and take care of myself once the contextual issues are solved.
1b) Lead and layout are fine. As for jargon, the phrases G.S. Pkwy and PIP need to be expanded in both the Route description and Major intersections. Unless I missed something, the acronym PIP never appears on signs, and the parkway is not referenced frequently enough in this article to warrant an abbreviation. There are a few instances of overlinking, such as George Washington Bridge, Pulaski Highway, and US 1 and US 9.

Reworded sentences about Elizabeth River crossing. The G.S. Parkway and PIP abbreviations are part of {{jct}} and is done to cut down on space taken in the table. From what I see, there is no overlinking, as the terms are linked in the lead, once each in the body, and in the intersection templates. ---Dough4872 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since G.S. Parkway and PIP are spit out as abbreviations when using the jct template, I will let that go. There are no longer instances of those abbreviations in the Route description, so we are good. Viridiscalculus (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2a) The details concerning signing 1/9 and how people reference it are included twice using much of the same wording: once at the end of the first sentence of the Lead and again at the end of the Route description. The wording is almost identical. This information should only be mentioned in the Lead, and the references should be included there as well.
2b) Linden Airport should be referenced. All other statements are sufficiently referenced.

Mentioned only in lead and referenced. Linden Airport is referenced from the Google Maps reference in the next sentence. ---Dough4872 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3b) There are a few areas with unnecessary detail. First, there is too much detail on the Pulaski Skyway in the Route description. There is already an article for Pulaski Skyway, so all you need to say is how they enter the skyway, how they leave, and the body of water crossed to enter the next county. This way, you do not need to have a combined subsection for Essex and Hudson counties. Second, there is too much detail on the I-95 overlap. All you need to say here is US 1/9/46 joins I-95, cross the George Washington Bridge together, and the concurrency ends in Manhattan when US 9 exits onto Broadway. The details are already covered in the articles for I-95 in NJ, GWB, and Trans-Manhattan Expwy.

Cut down detail on Pulaski Skyway and I-95 overlap. ---Dough4872 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the above specifics, I recommend the following:

  • Add street/highway names in the Route description for numbered routes that have names and those names are not already included. Example: CR 615 in Union County. Also, if 1/9 has names for the portions sound of the Pulaski Skyway, mention them. In Bergen County, a portion of 1/9 is named Bergen Turnpike, but this is not mentioned.
    • In previous GA reviews, I was told that having the names in parentheses for numbered routes is redundant. Accoring to the SLD, US 1/9 south of the Pulaski Skyway does not have a name but is referred to by its route number (this is a common practice in NJ). According to addresses on Google Maps, US 1/9 in Linden is called Edgar Road and a part of the road in Elizabeth is known as Spring Street, I have added mentions of this to the article. US 1/9 does not follow the Bergen Turnpike at any point and is officially called Tonnelle Avenue in Hudson County and Broad Avenue in Bergen County. ---Dough4872 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since New Jersey tends to not post both route numbers and street names at intersections, the names in parentheses are not necessary. They would be good to have, but since they are not ordinarily posted at intersections, you can leave them out. I got fooled by google maps on the Bergen Turnpike. Viridiscalculus (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention one or two large cemeteries passed, but there are several more along the route that should be mentioned.
  • There are a few minor bodies of water crossed south of Newark that are not mentioned in the Route description.
  • When you mention interchanges in the Route description, if you do not already have a description, add them. Example: CR 678 in Hudson County, which should be described as a diamond interchange. If interchanges having missing movements, like the US 1/US 9 interchange in Woodbridge, you may want to explain how the missing movements are completed. Finally, there are several RIROs on Tonnelle Ave worth mentioning.
    • I added some, but not all interchanges fit into a specific type. As for explaining partial interchanges, articles should not have a "how-to" in explaining how to navigate missing movements unless they are officially signposted. Also, listing the RIROs on Tonnelle Avenue would be too excessive. ---Dough4872 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will check back on February 25 at the latest. Viridiscalculus (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. ---Dough4872 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the changes. I went through the article changes and corrected a few typos and awkward sentences. This article is passed. Viridiscalculus (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Route_1/9/GA1&oldid=345932290"