| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ¡
Article talk (
|
history) ¡
Watch
Reviewer: Rschen7754 ( talk ¡ contribs) 16:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- To address the previous review, it was a 30-second sweep to catch self-published sources, so I don't think it prevents me from doing this review.
- Sources 5 and 11 are deadlinks.
- Fixed. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can't tell what source 42 is.
- Fixed. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- The lead seems a bit slanted towards the history, when the RD is longer than the history.
- Cut some information. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- In the first paragraph you overuse "the route".
- Reduced usage. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- In the second paragraph you overuse "portion".
- Reduced usage. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Route description
- "large interchange" - be more specific or cut it out entirely
- Remove "large". Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- "heads east-southeast industrial areas" - something missing
- Added word. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Later on, overuse of "development" and "interchange"
- Cut back usage of both words. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- "As part of the Interstate Highway System, the entire length of I-295 is a part of the National Highway System." - perhaps this should go in an introduction to the RD, like Interstate 8 has it.
- Added mini-lead to RD. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- History
- Please check to make sure that you don't start consecutive sentences with the same words.
- Fixed. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Future
- The northern portion of I-295 will be affected by the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project in Bristol Township, Pennsylvania. - I feel this sentence is bland and says almost nothing.
- Removed sentence. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Should be a pass after this is resolved, but please go through and check for other overused words and extraneous details. -- Rs chen 7754 18:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, I have replied above. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ¡
Article talk (
|
history) ¡
Watch
Reviewer: Rschen7754 ( talk ¡ contribs) 16:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- To address the previous review, it was a 30-second sweep to catch self-published sources, so I don't think it prevents me from doing this review.
- Sources 5 and 11 are deadlinks.
- Fixed. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can't tell what source 42 is.
- Fixed. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- The lead seems a bit slanted towards the history, when the RD is longer than the history.
- Cut some information. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- In the first paragraph you overuse "the route".
- Reduced usage. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- In the second paragraph you overuse "portion".
- Reduced usage. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Route description
- "large interchange" - be more specific or cut it out entirely
- Remove "large". Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- "heads east-southeast industrial areas" - something missing
- Added word. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Later on, overuse of "development" and "interchange"
- Cut back usage of both words. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- "As part of the Interstate Highway System, the entire length of I-295 is a part of the National Highway System." - perhaps this should go in an introduction to the RD, like Interstate 8 has it.
- Added mini-lead to RD. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- History
- Please check to make sure that you don't start consecutive sentences with the same words.
- Fixed. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Future
- The northern portion of I-295 will be affected by the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project in Bristol Township, Pennsylvania. - I feel this sentence is bland and says almost nothing.
- Removed sentence. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Should be a pass after this is resolved, but please go through and check for other overused words and extraneous details. -- Rs chen 7754 18:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, I have replied above. Dough 4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)