Talk:U.S. Route 130/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is ~~on hold~~ approved for GA promotion. Viridiscalculus (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct

The prose is mostly clear. Be careful when describing roadside situations like "development", "some homes", and "businesses". There is an instance of "development" in the Salem County section; what kind of "development?" Are these "some homes" in Salem County a subdivision or just a string of houses on the highway? In Camden County, you mention Crescent Boulevard is "lined with businesses"; are these Main Street type small businesses or suburban shopping centers? On the freeway portions, you should only mention scenery off the freeway if the driver can clearly see it while paying attention to the road. It is the distinction between passing through an industrial area and the driver seeing smokestacks or oil tanks, crossing a river, or seeing a landmark like a water tower with the name of a town; versus "some homes" to the side of the freeway that are half hidden behind a sound wall if the driver glances to the side.

When you address former route numbers as you do in the History and Lead, make sure it is clear whether the routes are past or present numbers or what era they are a part of, even if there are redirects to the present numbered article (as in the case of NJ 25M and present NJ 171).

There are some typos (e.g., Ben Franklin Bridhe, Rancocas Creekand, ciities) and a few minor issues such as unclosed parentheses and periods not attached to the end of words. There are instances of improper definite articles, such as "the Oldmans Creek" and "the Raccoon Creek." In the Route description, there are phrases like "Pennsville Township, Salem County". Is the county necessary? As far as I know, township names are unique within New Jersey, so differentiation with the name of the county should not be necessary. The header lets people know the township is in the stated county, and there are better ways to work in a wikilink to the county.

I recommend looking over your work again since it has been two months since this article was submitted for GA; you are more likely to notice mistakes like these now. I can also go through with a fine tooth comb once content issues have been resolved. Viridiscalculus (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified a couple of points regarding what environments the road passes through. By the way, the article should not go into too much detail about the surroundings, so it is not too relevant to indicate what scenery is near the freeway. This issue has come up in past GA reviews. As for addressing former routes, I think the fact it is former becomes clear as the reader continues through the article. It does not have to be mentioned immediately. For instance, I mention Route 25 and Route 25M in the lead and a sentence later indicate they were removed in 1953. I fixed the typos and grammatical errors. It does help to indicate the county in the prose as to provide a wikilink. ---Dough 48 72 03:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Lead: Some of the information in the second paragraph seems too specific for someone just trying to get the gist of the article. In particular, I would remove the information about concurrent routes and the specifics about old alignments. In the first paragraph, since you do not have a summary paragraph in the Route description above the specifics under the county headers, I would summarize the major junctions in the Lead.

In New Jersey, concurrent routes prior to 1953 were important as the state referred to routes by their state highway designations. Therefore, it is helpful to indicate that US 130 was concurrent with various routes prior to 1953. Adding the major junctions to the lead would be excessive and they can easily be seen in the infobox. ---Dough 48 72 03:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Layout: The layout follows USRD guidelines.

Jargon: I did not see any jargon in this article.

Words to avoid: I did not see any words to avoid in this article.

Fiction: Writing about fiction does not apply here.

List incorporation: There are no lists in this article, nor are there sections of prose where a list would be more suitable to present the information. Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout

This article has a References section filled with footnotes cited in the preceding sections. However, Reference 27 no longer links to the article mentioned. Viridiscalculus (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the broken link. ---Dough 48 72 03:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

Both in the infobox and the Route description, the Pennsylvania Extension of the NJTP is stated as being I-95. That is incorrect; the extension is I-276 until the I-95/I-276 interchange in PA is completed in a few years. Make sure to state in both cases that the road it intersects is the extension so people are not confused into thinking US 130 intersects the main line of the turnpike. Speaking of the routebox, there are 11 items in the major junctions section; there should be a maximum of ten. I advise removing I-295 since they are parallel routes and they intersect three times outside the southern terminus.

At the end of the second paragraph of the History, it is not clear if the bypass of Carneys Point and Bridgeport to Westville was freeway or not. Did the construction if I-295 through the area require an upgrade from bypass to freeway or was I-295 signed on the US 130 freeway?

While Route 92 was to have an interchange with US 130, I do not think the three sentences about it are relevant to the history of US 130. Viridiscalculus (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PA extension of the NJTP is officially I-95 according to NJDOT's SLD. I-276 does not enter New Jersey but rather ends at the bridge over the Delaware River. Google Maps is misleading in showing the extension as I-276. I removed the I-295 junction from the infobox as suggested. Clarified details in history. Removed Route 92 information as Route 92 article should cover that need. ---Dough 48 72 03:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research.

This articles contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

This article addresses the main aspects of the topic. Viridiscalculus (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The description of the concurrency between US 130 and I-295 may contain unnecessary detail, since I-295 is the primary route here. On the other hand, since the I-295 article does not go into this amount of detail on the concurrency, and this route was originally US 130, the detail may not be unnecessary. Just a thought. This is probably more of an issue for the junction list than the route description. If you keep the I-295 details in the junction list, I would add more emphasis to the start and end points of the 130/295 overlap, and add an exit column to the table, so a "moron in a hurry" would not think US 130 intersects I-295 at 12 straight interchanges. Viridiscalculus (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the detail in the route description for the I-295 concurrency is sufficient. The table in the article does not allow for an exit number column to be used, so it has to be presented the way it is. Otherwise, I could change it to a table format that allows for exit numbers.

Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

This article has no problems with neutrality.

Stable

it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

This article is stable.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

All images are tagged with their copyright status, with permission statements as required. No fair use rationale was necessary for any of the images. ---Dough 48 72 03:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

All but one image is sufficient; the exception is the map in the infobox. The map does not follow the USRD map standards. From the map, it is hard to make out bodies of water, state and county borders, and different categories of routes. US 130 is a red line in an area bereft of context. This map needs to be replaced before this article can be promoted to GA.

The following comments concern the photograph images: All images show the road featured in this article, so they are all germane. Some of the images have problems of photo quality. In particular, the Route 156 photo looks like a windshield is in the way, the Route 413 photo has a blurred background, the Route 48 photo was taken at night and has glare issues, and the Airport Circle photo is missing part of one of the big green signs. These problems will not prevent GA status, but I advise replacing some of the less crisp pictures if possible in the future.

Most of the captions adequately explain the images, but there are some improvements that can be made. For instance, in the Airport Circle caption, there is no city mentioned. I personally know where Airport Circle is, but other people would not without reading the prose of the Route description. The captions should be written in such a way that people who skim articles just to look at the photos would understand what is going on in the photo. In that vein, I would like to see all captions wikified; the Route 48 image caption does a good job of this. Viridiscalculus (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map was created a while ago, and at the time probably met standards. IMO, it still seems useful for this article. As for the photos, they are the best available at the moment, if I can get any better photos I will change them up. I made some fixes to the image captions. ---Dough 48 72 03:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

I thought this article was well written and covers all of the major areas. There was just one major flaw (the map) and a series of minor flaws (irrelevant history, infobox, captions, clarifications on I-295/US 130 overlap, spelling) that should be addressed before I will support promoting this article to GA-class. Therefore, this article's nomination for Good Article status is on hold.

This was my first GA-class review, so if anyone has suggestions on how I can improve in this task in the future, please let me know. Also, if you notice anything I missed, please point it out. Otherwise, I will check on this article on February 11 to see if it should be promoted. Viridiscalculus (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above changes and made some clarifications for what GA road articles should be like as this is your first review. ---Dough 48 72 03:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the article again and made a few grammar edits. All requested and reasonable changes were made. It looks very good except for the map. Right now, the map is the only thing in the way of promoting this article. I am going to ask for a second opinion on whether the map needs an upgrade before this article should be promoted. Viridiscalculus (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion Needed

For the second reviewer: This article is ready to be promoted to GA-status but for the condition of the current map. Can you provide input as to whether the map should be upgraded before this article is raised to GA? Thanks, Viridiscalculus (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not even necessary for GA. --Rs chen 7754 10:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not necessary, but this image is already present and it is a map in an infobox that does not do a good job of providing context. Viridiscalculus (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know, the map was created before the current MTF standards were adopted, it was compliant at the time. In addition, maps are not a solid requirement for GA. ---Dough 48 72 17:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After further review of the map issue, I will pass this article. Viridiscalculus (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]