Talk:New Jersey Route 90/GA1

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

I am planning to begin the review of this article.SriMesh | talk  00:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. First sentence spell out first instance of United States and abbreviate (U.S.) afterwards.
 * 2. Second sentence is very long and hard to follow.
 * 3. A 1970 proposal include the planned Route 90...includes or included. include does not sound right for grammar..Actually the whole sentence doesn't read right...A 1970 proposal include the planned Route 90 a part of the Interstate Highway System was denied.  ...perhaps would be better...A proposal in 1970 to include Route 90 as a part of the Interstate Highway System was denied. or A 1970 proposal to include Route 90 as a part of the Interstate Highway System was denied. or A 1970 proposal was denied which would include Route 90 as a part of the Interstate Highway System.
 * 4. Per manual of style $23 million the firt time currency is used mention that it is $..If it is significant when using currency in an article use the Template:Inflation ...perhaps check the diff out in a sandbox.
 * 5. Interstate 295, no space before comma
 * 6. I am assuming built-up areas  means built up residential areas.... and that the abstract names of  Cherry Hill, Maple Shade, and Mount Laurel, are neighbourhoods or residential areas.  was the northerly route through more of a parkland area?
 * 7. Remove the word but from this sentence...but was cancelled by 1980 due  the way it is currently written.
 * 8. As the speed limit is given in ref 1 it could be noted in article.
 * 9. The reference urls all check out.  The wiki link is OK I think as it goes to a primary source image and not to an article.
 * 10. All images comply with use in the article
 * 11. Coverage. Addressed a little bit above.  Some of the proposals could be finished in the article as to why they were dumped.  So that it makes sense that another was needed.
 * 12. The automatic peer reviewer thingie requested additional length to ensure adequate coverage. If possible this could be done, however a lot is in the article about the highway already.
 * 13. whil the portion should have a sp correction to while the portion...
 * 14. Well spellchecker did not like the word signage... however it is a wikipedia word as well as Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, so we'll leave it.
 * 15. onramp should be on-ramp offramp should be off-ramp according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and other dictionaries
 * 16. Change Berrlin to Berlin
 * 17. Change cancelled to canceled in more than one place.
 * 18. A map would be nice...will check to see if maps are a pre-requisite to GA or not and come back to here. Did the double check, and maps are not a pre-requisite, just nice to have as an image would be....so will just remain with a map would be nice but is not a fail issue.
 * 19


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Good luck improving the article. I am placing it on hold to allow time to address the minor points brought forward above. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk  01:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * As above notes
 * 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):
 * from what I see it is broad in coverage, and it has a few contributors as well. Will get a quick second opinion on this point...so far I will leave this point checked off as aye.
 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have gone back and made changes to the article. As for the use of Template:Inflation, I am a little confused of its use in converting historical dollars to today's dollars. Dough4872 (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Upgraded now that changes are applied to the article. Thank you.  SriMesh |  talk  02:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)