Talk:New Jersey Route 48/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * "It is a two-lane, undivided road its entire length that intersects with Interstate 295 and County Route 551." &mdash; change to "through its entire length" or "in its entire length". I'm not sure which is more correct, but this doesn't sound well.
 * "It was moved off portions of the Route 48 alignment twice..." &mdash; reword, sounds a bit weird.
 * Un-bold the road designations in "History" per MOS:BOLD.
 * Can you please point out how are refs 4 and 6 reliable sources? Admiral Norton (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have gone back and made changes to the article. As for the bolded road designations, they are that way because they are redirects to the article. As for the sources, a previous discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard states these sources seem to be okay to use. Dough4872 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. I'm promoting this article. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is a two-lane, undivided road its entire length that intersects with Interstate 295 and County Route 551." &mdash; change to "through its entire length" or "in its entire length". I'm not sure which is more correct, but this doesn't sound well.
 * "It was moved off portions of the Route 48 alignment twice..." &mdash; reword, sounds a bit weird.
 * Un-bold the road designations in "History" per MOS:BOLD.
 * Can you please point out how are refs 4 and 6 reliable sources? Admiral Norton (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have gone back and made changes to the article. As for the bolded road designations, they are that way because they are redirects to the article. As for the sources, a previous discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard states these sources seem to be okay to use. Dough4872 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. I'm promoting this article. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. I'm promoting this article. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)