Talk:Pennsylvania Route 63

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pennsylvania Route 63/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The definite article "the" is used before several bodies of water. Example: the Wissahickon Creek. Normal usage is to omit "the" before named creeks. There are other isolated spelling and grammar issues I will go through later and correct myself. I suggest trying to use shorter paragraphs, as the Route description seems to drag on and on.

   Removed instances of the before creek names. I have also split a couple of long paragraphs. Dough4872 23:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

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):

   The Route description mentions a few roads/streets that either are not in the table of Major intersections or are not used as reference points within articles for locating a body of water or a political boundary. Example: The road heads through residential neighborhoods and crosses Orvilla Road. Is there something about that intersection that makes a reference to it notable or necessary? It is not clear from the text where PA 63 enters the city of Philadelphia. The Major intersections table is missing miles for all intersections between the endpoints. Can you try to find a source for these intersections and add the mileages, even if it is something like google or yahoo? Also, I think part of PA 63 is on the National Highway System, so I would mention that and source as required.

   Removed a few of the minor intersections from the route description except for where the road marks a boundary change. Also indicated area where PA 63 enters Philadelphia. Found source and mentioned National Highway System. For the mileposts, I used Google, as PennDOTs source for the mileage is impossible to work correctly. Dough4872 23:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

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:

   Putting on hold until the above issues are addressed. I will also go through the text to fix spelling and other isolated grammar issues before making a decision to promote. Sorry for taking so long to review this from when I volunteered to do so. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above. Dough4872 23:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks. I went through the article for grammar, spelling, and flow and made some edits there. This article is good to go. However, when you get a chance, I recommend adding cities to the Destinations field of the Major intersections and updating the mileages once you get better numbers. Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)