Wikipedia:Peer review/Pennsylvania Route 65/archive1

Pennsylvania Route 65

I've worked hard on this article so it could reach Good article status and I feel there's something missing. If someone would like to see the article, so can look for mistakes or tone please tell me. Thank You. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 16:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bcasterline

A couple things:

In the intro: "...it is at-grade". What does that mean? Technical terms such as "concurrency" are also not clearly defined.
"Route description" seems unnecessary, especially given the lists that follow. But maybe that's standard for highway articles.

I made some copyedits, but it might need some more. Otherwise looks good. -- bcasterline • talk 23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

at-grade means not limited-access or road that's not a freeway but i can't find a synonym for at-grade. A concurrency is two or more roads that are joined together from certain point to another. All of this follows projects headlines especially the route description. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 20:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking works just as well defining. I see concurrency had already been linked -- didn't notice that. -- bcasterline • talk 01:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool, anything else it needs to become a Good Article??? -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 1:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Case

Consider breaking up those overly long grafs in the route description sections ... it'll be easier on readers' eyes. Look at the sort of route descriptions I write for WP:NYSR: NY 52, NY 55, U.S. Route 9 in New York for example. Daniel Case 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, i guess i'll break them up from place to place. Anything else? -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 13:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Concern

My concern is the route description. I don't think is written as well as it should be and the history should be checked followed by the references. My concern is that the references won't be reliable enough. Everything else looks great. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NE2

You're going to need some reliable sources rather than the personal websites. --NE2 23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]