Wikipedia:Peer review/Pennsylvania Route 39/archive1

Pennsylvania Route 39

I'd like a general overview of the page, ultimately leading to FA status. --myselfalso 22:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JohnnyAlbert10

An advice I would give you is to look for as many references as you can get on the article for FA status, although 20 is enough but the more the better. PennDOT has a lot of data on traffic counts 1 and historical maps 2. Other current metro area maps 3 and current county maps can be used as a reference for the route description. Oh and check the lead, I might have some grammar issues due to fact that I'm not good at that. Good luck on the FAC. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 22:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwin60

Please, please, cite more sources! I'm especially concerned with the mileposts, because these need the most verification. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · ER 3} 04:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll takecare of it since I filled the new four digit mileposts. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 12:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has been taken care off but its chances are better with more references. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 12:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second semi-automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 1 mile, use 1 mile, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 1 mile.^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 23:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]