Talk:New Jersey Route 81/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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * The lead is currently too long; for an article of this length, it should consist of one moderately sized paragraph.
 * The route heads north from this interchange as a four-lane freeway with a 40 mph (64 km/h) speed limit that is maintained by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. - The speedy limit is maintained by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority? Unclear wording.
 * The original plan in the early 1960s for what is now Route 81 was to connect Newark International Airport with Elizabeth Seaport, bypassing Humboldt Avenue, which at the time was designated Route 164; the route is no longer a state highway. - Which route is no longer a state highway? NJ 164?
 * By the 1970s, it was decided to have Route 81 start at a new interchange 13A of the New Jersey Turnpike. - Who decided this?
 * Is http://www.nycroads.com/roads/NJ-81/ a reliable source?

Looks good other than that. Putting this on-hold for now. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I have gone back and made changes to the article. As for NYCRoads, we had a discussion about it in the past and it was said to be a reliable SPS as it cites its sources. Dough4872 (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well-done as always. Passing. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)