Talk:New Jersey Route 73/GA1

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


 * 1) Prose - be careful - I found a lot of careless mistakes:
 * 2) Lead - should the units be linked the first time around?
 * 3) This was automatically generated by convert, which does not link the units. Dough4872 (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I just checked MOS and it says don't link the units... my bad. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) RD - "This portion of the route is officially considered a part of Route 73 but is signed as "to" Route 73 in the northbound direction and "to" U.S. Route 322 in the southbound direction." - There any other way to phrase this? The speed limits are not relevant. "It intersectisCounty Route 680". "commercial areas with some agiriculture". "comes to an interchange" ?
 * 6) Broke into two sentences and reworded. Removed speed limits. Fixed. Changed to farms. Reworded. Dough4872 (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) I was thinking of rewording it so there is no "to". --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Reworded. Dough4872 (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) This isn't really clear either. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Took out as it is not important. Dough4872 (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Paragraphs are really long. I'm told that this may also mean that the RD is not very well organized.
 * 12) Broke up paragraphs. Dough4872 (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) It seems like the road goes through only "agriculture", "residences", "wooded areas", and "businesses" (in other words, it seems like you divided New Jersey into those four classifications and are assigning the routing of 73 into those areas) -  that makes it seem really boring. I would suggest getting details from other sources - besides maps.
 * 14) I tried mentioning some of the attractions along the road, but there are not too many. Any suggestions of possible good sources would be appreciated. Dough4872 (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) This is really your responsibility to take care of before GAN. I can't pass the article as is - the RD is too boring, making it incomprehensible. I can't even tell if NJ 73 ever becomes a freeway or not because such information would get lost in the RD.
 * 16) Major intersections - is there a better way than putting "Interchange" on several rows?
 * 17) Since NJ 73 is a surface road and used a Major intersections table, there is no better way of indicating this. Dough4872 (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Standardize the dates in the citations.
 * 19) Done. Dough4872 (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Broad.
 * 21) Neutral.
 * 22) Stable.
 * 23) WP:ALT.
 * 24) Added ALT text. Dough4872 (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Apparently you missed something - see the altviewer. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Fixed. Dough4872 (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

On hold - article needs some improvements. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. Dough4872 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll finish looking at this later, gotta run. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically to me it seems like you're trying to make a bunch of "cookie-cutter" articles that follow the same formula. You can't do that with highway articles. We're looking at another battle with highway notability coming up (see NJ 64) and giving the editors a bunch of technical gibberish as an example is not going to help our case at all. To prove significance and notability you've got to answer the question "Why should the reader care?" "Because it goes through woods, residences, businesses, and agriculture, and because it goes between townships and counties and intersects with county roads" is not a satisfactory answer. You could say that about any highway in New England.


 * We're getting too many GAs that are filled with this sort of thing, and even worse (the speed limits, for example). I think we need to put a stop to this. I'm going to keep holding this article for the rest of the 7 days but I'm not optimistic that this article will be ready by that time. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have gone back and added additional non-map sources to the RD. In addition, I added a couple sentences explaining the importance of the road. Route 73 is in fact a very important road in South Jersey and a small segment of it serves as a link between two of the largest cities in the United States. Dough4872 (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would consider possibly removing "residences" and "businesses" etc. unless you can be more descriptive. At least don't use the same words over and over again. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to alternate and vary the wording and removed some instances that were redundant. Dough4872 (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It still needs more work. I would start working on cutting down repeated words as well - such as "interchanges." --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tried reducing use of "interchange" and varied some other words. Dough4872 (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, how are you sourcing what is a business and a residential area? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Satellite imagery and Street View on Google Maps. Dough4872 (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) Another possibility is removing the street names. For example, instead of County Route 343 (My Street), just try County Route 343. Or even CR 343. The streets seem to be in the major ints table, so this would not result in a loss of information.

There's a lot of work that needs to be done here; one or two edits won't cut it. I would also suggest doing the same to your other GANs; even if they pass, they will be horribly dry articles that people won't want to read. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been brought to my attention that on your latest GAN New Jersey Route 47 you have 6 "wooded areas", 19 "residences", 3 "suburban", and 15 "businesses". This is not acceptable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the street names from the RD in the article and will make fixes to my other GANs. Dough4872 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would even consider taking out some of the "residences" etc. information entirely. You've got a huge route description for ~30 miles of road. (This is about the length of the route description for California State Route 78). People don't really care about much of that information. Please use abbreviations for County Routes. "Here," is overused. "Past ..." is overused. "passes" is overused. Why has NJ 73 been rated one of the worst roads in the state? You need to provide more info on that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have pruned the RD of the excessive mention of residences and businesses, only using them a few times to give a general atmosphere of the upcoming portion of road. I abbreviated the CRs and have changed some overused words. I also made it more clear how NJ 73 was one of the worst roads in the state. Dough4872 (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Here" is still overused. "Past _" is still overused. "crosses" is still overused - don't use the same words within a few sentences of each other if at all possible. That being said this is starting to become something I may be able to pass. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Replaced most instances of the three words. Dough4872 (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and pass the article, but this still will need work before ACR or FAC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)