Talk:New Jersey Route 120/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

   You might want to consider adding alt text to the images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good content on the whole, but there are some prose issues. Examples:

• As a result of the construction of the Meadowlands Xanadu retail and entertainment complex, the interchange between Route 3 and Route 120 is being reconstructed, with an overpass between eastbound Route 3 and northbound Route 120 completed in 2009 and a a flyover from southbound Route 120 to eastbound Route 3 to be completed in 2010. - Unnecessarily long sentence.
• As a result of the construction of the Meadowlands Xanadu retail and entertainment complex, the interchange between Route 3 and Route 120 is being reconstructed - "construction... reconstructed"
• The freeway heads north-northeast into the Meadowlands Sports Complex, with Giants Stadium on the west side of the road and the Izod Center and the construction site of the Meadowlands Xanadu retail and entertainment complex on the east side of the road. - Nearly incomprehensible run-on sentence.
• Watch out for redundant words like "over" in the following line: The route has a southbound exit and entrance to the Meadowlands Sports Complex before it crosses over Berrys Creek.

Also, footnote #6 needs a citation.

Again, good work so far. I'm putting the article on-hold for now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have replied to the above changes. Dough4872 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking better, but I'm not quite comfortable citing the 1953 renumbering to a source published in 1952. Are there any more recent sources? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1952 source is the best I can find and I feel it is accurate as it refers to the impending renumbering that was in the works for over a year and was to become official on 1/1/1953. Dough4872 (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looks good enough to pass, but it still needs a bit of copyediting if you're going for A or FA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)