Talk:New Jersey Route 7/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):

   The wording in the first paragraph of the lead may need a bit of tweaking. Specifically, it's not really necessary to mention twice that the road has two sections (i.e. "It has two sections" ... "Even though Route 7 is composed of two sections").

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nice article overall, just some minor wording nitpicks. - Algorerhythms (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have gone back and made the suggested change. Dough4872 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Passing after changes made. - Algorerhythms (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)