Talk:Pennsylvania Route 848

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pennsylvania Route 848/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk · contribs) 01:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • After the name of the article, there are four different naming conventions used subsequently: SR X, State Route X, Route X, and PA X. You should use one abbreviated naming convention consistently throughout the article for all Pennsylvania state highways. I strongly recommend using PA X for two reasons: that is the one produced by the jct template, and only PA X redirects to this article. You should do similar for U.S. and Interstate highways: use the full form and introduce the abbreviation the first time, and use abbreviations thereafter.
   • "In 1936, Route 371 was designated on its alignment from New Milford to the New York state line,[6] however, this would ..." The comma before "however" should be a semicolon, or the sentence should be split into two sentences to resolve a run-on. Also, in "its alignment," it is not clear what the pronoun refers to.
   • "When the current-day state highway system for Pennsylvania was debuted in 1928, the state was not made part of the system." There is a word missing in the second clause.
   • There are a few other grammatical issues, but I can work on them after the content issues are resolved.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • I am confused as to what Ref 1 is and how it is being used. Can you clarify?
   • Ref 2 links to a map of the U.S. with a flag over northeastern Pennsylvania. How is this reference used to support the Route description? Ref 10 is also a map referenced used for length purposes; perhaps use ref 10 for what you were supporting using Ref 2?
   • "Route 848 heads to the northeast on Harford Road..." You mean northwest, right?
3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • There are several Quadrant Routes and other roads mentioned in the Route description. Unless they are notable or are being used for context, I suggest removing most of them.
   • "The turnpike did not fare after the mid-1800s, being abandoned in 1853. The corporation remained active for another fifteen years, being dissolved in 1868.[4]" For the first sentence, you can just say when the turnpike was abandoned; including both clauses is redundant. The second sentence may not be relevant or it could be confusing; it begs the question of why the corporation remained active but did not collect tolls.
   • If the turnpikes originated in the 1800s, "18th century" should be changed to "19th century." The Newburgh and Cochecton Turnpike article in the See also section mentions a Cochecton and Great Bend Turnpike in Pennsylvania. If the Great Bend and Newburgh Turnpike was not actually the name of a turnpike, it should not be mentioned or the prose should imply the term was a colloquial usage (as Ref 3 implies); rather, the Cochecton and Great Bend Turnpike should be mentioned instead as the official name.
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):

   There are no images, so not an issue.

   Actually, there is an image, but there are no issues with it.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I will put this review on hold for the issues above to be addressed.  VC  03:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

To start off, please don't review my articles in the future, I just want out of project reviews due to people who don't stop running their mouths about inbred. It prevents problems and I'm content with my GAN sitting 4 months till I get one. On the issues with Citation 1, its the GIS data provided by the state, which is our only "official" length source. Its a GIS data made by PennDOT, and the title is the name of the file. Citation 2 has been fixed. All the grammar issues have been reworded, however, I prefer the double clause in the "dormant turnpike company" sentence. For the dormant company, I didn't go into over-detail because it would be redundant to PA 371, which is really where it should be covered in detail. As for the SR/PA/Route/State Route naming conventions, I have never liked PA X, and for a while have been advocating for an SRNC change to PA to get SR or Traffic Route introduced. I've removed the redundant State Route, but my personal preference is the Route 848 for everything, the lone SR 848 in the first sentence and whatever Jct produces. Finally, the quadrant routes are not going. It's not written anywhere that they can't be mentioned in the article. (They may not deserve their own article, they deserve mention in my book.) All three in the article mark where Route 848 makes gradual turns and actually make point of reference. Finally, there is a photo in the article! How the hell was that missed?Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 15:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, before this review continues, I need to rewrite the route description. It's been pointed out that the RD is backwards at the moment. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 15:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem rectified.Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 16:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we have been acquainted, I can acquiesce to your desire not to have project members review your articles. Certainly I do not want to waste my time to provide a review for someone who is going to be ungrateful for it. However, that may not stop other project members from reviewing your work. The only way to prevent people from reviewing your work is to not nominate articles at GAN.  VC  17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not crazy about not being able to check the GIS data for Ref 1, but I will let it stand. That being said, is there a reason Ref 1 is not being used as the length reference in the Major intersections table? I would think the GIS data would have a number for the I-81 interchange.  VC  17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ref 1 is currently serving the two termini. Ref 10 is serving the middle. Currently I have no ability to check it, as Quantum GIS no longer works on my computer.Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 20:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Rectified. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 20:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that Ref 2 is fixed, it looks redundant with Ref 10. Please use only one of those references; you can use the same reference for length (if not using Ref 1) and to support the Route description.  VC  17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

10 isn't in the Route description. Ref 10 is backing up the intersections with Ref 1.Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 20:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

For the dormant company, I am not asking for more details. Instead, I would prefer either the sentence be rewritten to avoid begging the question, or the sentence removed. The sentence can be removed without the reader losing any context about the route.  VC  17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed.Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 20:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to check whether state project articles should be using the PA X abbreviation. You do not use SR 848 elsewhere in the article, so you should either remove it or use SR X as your abbreviation throughout the article. SR 848 needs to be unbolded because SR 848 does not redirect to this article.  VC  17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree about the quadrant routes, but I will not hold the article on this point.  VC  17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This article has been improved enough. I performed a copy edit and now I will pass the article.  VC  01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Tag removal

@Dough4872: do you think you could give some sort of explanation for why you removed those tags? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)