Talk:New Jersey Route 27/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

A preliminary review will be completed in a few hours. Please be patient. --Polaron | Talk 16:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Lead section -- Looks good. I've made some minor changes for clarity.
 * Route description section
 * Well-written? -- The current way the route description is written makes it hard to read through. Would it be possible to rewrite it such that it doesn't have the feel of just reading a list of intersections? I would suggest removing some of the county route intersections in the route description unless those routes are heavily used for more than local area traffic. I would also think removing the super-precise mileposts would help readability somewhat. Grammar is generally good. There are a few minor nitpicks that I will fix myself at the end of the review.
 * Factually accurate? -- Generally good. There are, however, parts of the route description ascribed to Google Maps that are bordering on original research, e.g. making an interpretation that an area is commercial or residential or urban or suburban. This is probably ok for GA but this should be improved for higher article classes.
 * Broad in converage? -- As mentioned above, the route description has too much unnecessary detail in my opinion. Lose some of the minor intersections and lessen the use of milepost numbers unless needed to understand the junction. Can we add some additional attractions along the route? How much traffic uses this road and what is the general function of the road given that it is parallel to US 1, the GSP, and the NJTP? The road also runs closely parallel to railroad tracks. I think that should be emphasized a bit more.
 * Neutral and stable? -- Good
 * Images? -- Good
 * History section
 * Well-written? -- Prose is generally good. However, the sentence "With the creation of the U.S. Highway System, U.S. Route 206] was designated along the portion of route between Trenton and Princeton and U.S. Route 1 was also designated along the length of Route 27 until 1931, ..." needs some work. First, US 206 designated several years after the U.S. Highway System was first implemented. This is better split as two sentences, with the time of designation clearly indicated. Also, in the next sentence, "concurrency it shared with" is redundant. A link to one-way pair here is also appropriate.
 * Factually accurate? -- Good but clarification on year of US 206 and US 1 designation and removal is needed. If you can find alternative sources for Refs. 6, 7, 9, 10, that would be better. Linking directly to the renumbering laws and or citing various old maps would be a preferable way of sourcing this information.
 * Broad in coverage? -- The Route 27 right of way appears to have been also utilized by several 19th-century turnpikes (see List of turnpikes in New Jersey). At a minimum, these should be mentioned in the history section. If possible, a short explanation might even be called for. Do we know when the one way couplet in Elizabeth was established? Have there been any other realignments of the route, especially in cities?
 * Neutral and stable? -- Good
 * Images? -- None but not really needed in this section
 * Overall comments -- There are two major but easily fixable issues that I think need to be addressed before this article can become a Good Article: (1) Too much unnecessary detail in the route description and (2) Inclusion of turnpike history. There are also minor issues that are not necessary for the article to pass but I would recommend be done anyway, including clarifying the U.S. Route designation history, inclusion of any realignments, adding traffic and functional class information, additional attractions, alternative references. I am placing the article on hold to allow for fixes. --Polaron | Talk 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have gone back and made changes to the article. Dough4872 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The changes look good. I have made some additional removals of what I think are unnecessary milepost numbers in the route description. I'll go over the article again later this afternoon to make sure there are no typos, missing/extraneous commas, etc., then I think this article is good to go. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 18:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have passed the article after another reading. Congratulations. --Polaron | Talk 19:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)