Jump to content

Talk:U.S. Route 40 in New Jersey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleU.S. Route 40 in New Jersey has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 18, 2009Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 40 in New Jersey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWOAP (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Please note that items may not be marked pass or fail, but the reviewer will put comments below the checklist to form his/her opinion on the category. --MWOAP (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Nice Job.


Notes

[edit]

*Section 1.1- contains the word "some" in referring to residences. This is a weasel word and is not for an article.

*Section 1.1- routes cannot "leave". That is personification.

*Section 1.1- "A short distance after"... Could we be a little more specific?

*Section 1.1- What is Harding Highway?

*Section 2.0- Second last sentence, loses neutrality "However"

*Intro- Intro (as I see a lot in transport articles) is too specific. It should summarize the article, not provide details.

*All over- Wikilinks only need to be done once per section.

*External Links- Need at least one, you could put NJDOT

*"Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date." (from User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet)

*Portal links belong in the "See also" section. (from User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet)

*All over- Withs are all over, see if we could be more specific. (i.e. "Using "with" as an additive link leads to wordy and awkward prose, e.g. "the town has ten councillors, with one being the district mayor" → "the town has ten councillors; one is the district mayor" " from User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet)

*Avoid vague words, such as "various", "many", "several", "long", "a number of", "just", "very" and "almost". (from User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet)

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above suggestions given to this point. I have removed the two original research tags as they are supported by the SLD and Google references. ---Dough4872 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • ok, still finishing up my review, (have to check sources, which takes a while, and have been busy). Could use a little more cleanup as above, I may post more here. --MWOAP (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]