Talk:New Jersey Route 70/GA1

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

Reviewer: MWOAP (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Criteria 1

 * Lead Section is way too specific. It gets into article details which are in below text. Review Lead section (tagged)
 * I have cut a few sentences. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected, not an issue any more --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Spelling issue in 1.2 Paragraph 2: "neighborhood" is spelled wrong, simple correction.
 * I do not see "neighborhood" in that paragraph. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it but surprised to see that it was not spelled incorrectly, not an issue any more --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, there are dead links. Consider removing.
 * Fixed. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected, not an issue any more --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Criteria 2

 * In section one, the last paragraph, first section; I fail to see where citation 5 comes into play. I think that this should just be left with the second sentence.
 * In the newspaper article, it says Route 70 is a crush in the Cherry Hill area, referring to it being congested. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, It works, not an issue any more --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In section two, citation 6 fails to provide some reference as to the page number. You might want to contact the person who cited it or remove/recite.
 * Found page number. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected, not an issue any more --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation Eight is not overseen or edited by any authority. Recommend removal of sentence or new citation. Feel free to tell me why this is reliable.
 * The information in the source is reliable as it is from annual reports produced by the State of New Jersey. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then, why don't we just link that instead, that way we can also assure that this page will not be altered. My main concern is it says from what we can tell, not assuming a NPOV. --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no specific page for the annual reports, and the information in the current source hasn't changed as it is supposed to be a direct quote of the state. A previous discussion at WP:RS/Noticeboard also stated the source was reliable since it reproduces primary sources. ---Dough4872 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected, not an issue any more.
 * Citation Nine has no "convenience link". Provide link.
 * Wikilinked to Wikisource text of 1927 renumbering. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected, not an issue any more --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Final Call
--MWOAP (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Feel free to notify me when these are fixed and I would be happy to redo the review. Also, use my talk page to ask me any questions about this.
 * Thanks for the review. I have replied to the above changes. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have skimmed over your edits, looks pretty good, a few more things though. I will look in to it tomorrow (it is late). Also, it is a little hard for me to keep track of these right now, so if you could put the talkback template on the user talk page that would help. Thanks, MWOAP (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, ONE MORE CLEAN UP ISSUE TO EDIT OR DISCUSS! Likely to be declared a pass in the next 24 hours. --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Now Nominated. --MWOAP (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)