Talk:Pennsylvania Route 332/GA1

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

Reviewer: Titoxd (talk · contribs) 00:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be reviewing the article. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 00:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Well written, but some comments:
 * PA 332 intersects PA 132 in Warminster, PA 232 in Richboro, PA 413 and PA 532 in Newtown, and Interstate 95 (I-95) in Lower Makefield Township. — from the road junction table at the bottom, it seems that PA 413/532 are more concurrencies than straight junctions. Can this be clarified in the lede somehow?
 * Clarified.  Dough 48  72  01:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * heading east on two-lane undivided Montgomery Avenue. — while grammatically correct, it would be better to say "heading east on Montgomery Avenue, a two-lane undivided roadway," as it currently sounds choppy.
 * Changed.  Dough 48  72  01:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jacksonville Road and heads through industrial and business areas with some homes.[2][3] — does the "with some homes" clause apply to the business areas, or to the industrial areas as well? The way it is currently written, this is unclear
 * It applies to both.  Dough 48  72  01:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In this area, the road briefly widens into a divided highway as it passes to the entrance to a housing development to the south of the road. — "passes to the entrance" seems like it is missing a word
 * Removed "to", it was accidentally added.  Dough 48  72  01:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon intersecting Lindenhurst Road, the route enters Lower Makefield Township and becomes Newtown Yardley Road, passing through farmland before heading north of an office park and reaching an interchange with I-95.  — borderline run-on sentence, please split
 * Split sentence.  Dough 48  72  01:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Couple of things here that I don't know where else to put:
 * It is very hard to read the top portion of the Route description in narrow screens, since the left-aligned image and the infobox produce a narrow column of text. Please align the image to the right to avoid that problem.
 * Realigned images.  Dough 48  72  01:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought road junction lists had to show concurrencies using a green background, per MOS:RJL?
 * Colors are option in RJLs.  Dough 48  72  01:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * What makes the Google Maps reference a reliable, primary source? In particularly, it seems problematic in regards to the road junction list mileposts, and identifying whether an area is commercial/industrial/residential. (If this is something that is sourced to the ADC maps—not Google—then this is not a problem, but I cannot independently verify the content of those sources.)
 * One can look at the satellite imagery or Street View to tell whether an area is residential or commercial. In addition, the mileposts can be found by doing driving directions along the route from the western terminus to the given intersection.  Dough 48  72  01:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * C. No original research:
 * See 2b above.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is essentially a GA, but I need more information to see whether the article meets criterion 2. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments.  Dough 48  72  01:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, regarding the map sources, they do barely satisfy WP:V, but it would be much better if you could strengthen the sourcing with zoning maps (for the area characteristics) or highway logs (for mileages). That is probably judging the citation with WP:WIAFA-levels of scrutiny, so I'm passing the article. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is essentially a GA, but I need more information to see whether the article meets criterion 2. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments.  Dough 48  72  01:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, regarding the map sources, they do barely satisfy WP:V, but it would be much better if you could strengthen the sourcing with zoning maps (for the area characteristics) or highway logs (for mileages). That is probably judging the citation with WP:WIAFA-levels of scrutiny, so I'm passing the article. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, regarding the map sources, they do barely satisfy WP:V, but it would be much better if you could strengthen the sourcing with zoning maps (for the area characteristics) or highway logs (for mileages). That is probably judging the citation with WP:WIAFA-levels of scrutiny, so I'm passing the article. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)