Talk:New Jersey Route 495/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Article is well-written and comprehensive. Just a few minor grammatical and MoS nitpicks to bring up to GA level.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Lead Clarify: designated as part of Interstate 495
   Route description Split the sentence "The main roadway heads east..." into two for better readability; Likewise, combine the following two sentences into a single compound sentence since they have the same subject ("The route has an interchange with Route 3..." and "This interchange provides access to eastbound Route 3..."; Insert "an" in "and the freeway has an interchange with County Route 501..."; Reword as the "2.02 mi" does not need to be repeated in the sentence "It enters Weehawken at 2.02 mi..."; Reduce the usage of the phrase "past this interchange" to add some variation
   History Change "with" to "when" in "with the first (now the center) tube..."; Fix typo in "but the helix over the New Jerseyu Palisades was constructed"; insert "on" in "...today’s Route 495 opened on January 15, 1952..."; Reword this sentence as the construction is awkward -- "Despite this, the Lincoln Tunnel approach was included in Interstate Highway System and in 1959, the road was renumbered from Route 3 to Interstate 495, despite the fact it does not meet Interstate Highway standards."; change "of" to "to" in "due to strong opposition to the road running through"

   B. MoS compliance:

   The length in the first sentence of the lead should read as "3.45-mi" as it is an adjective. Also, move the toll rate details in the exit list to a footnote or remove it altogether as that might be detail better suited to the Lincoln Tunnel article.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Can you clarify what kind of improvements were made to the interchange with US 1/9? Also, you might need to mention congestion issues just so all aspects are covered.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

   However, I don't like the first image as it doesn't really show anything. If possible, please find a substitute.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Some minor grammar and MoS fixes plus addition of some bits of information in history and you're good to go. Nomination is on hold pending fixes. Good luck. --Polaron | Talk 15:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have gone back and made changes to the article. As for the 3.45 mi in the first sentence of the lead, it is part of Template:Convert, which is used to show the distance in kilometers also. Dough4872 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The changes look good and I am now passing the article. Congratulations. --Polaron | Talk 03:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)