# Talk:Pennsylvania Route 363

I do know that part of 363 was truncated in the 1980s.  It used to run directly to Valley Forge, but it was then truncated to end at 422 in Audubon.  (If I had the time to do the research, I would.)  --myselfalso 00:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pennsylvania Route 363/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  17:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I've never reviewed a road article, so here it goes.

First, is there anything special about the route that can be emphasized in the first sentence? Right now, it just says what it is, which doesn't draw the reader in at all.
The following sentences in the lead emphasize the purpose of the route. Dough4872 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, it just seemed fairly bland, but it's better now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  06:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
"Throughout its length, PA 363 follows Trooper Road, Ridge Pike, Park Avenue, and Valley Forge Road." - what does that mean? Does it parallel those roads? Or does it intersect them
It means that the route is designated along those roads. Dough4872 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Then you should say that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  06:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Changed. Dough4872 20:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, I just noticed it, but would 363 be considered a spur, given that it intersects 63?
Yes it is, along with the other x63 numbers in the Philadelphia area. Dough4872
"PA 363 was first designated by 1930" - who designated it?
Clarified. Dough4872 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Check your writing. I'm not sure what you're trying to do there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  06:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
"At this intersection, the name of PA 363 becomes Valley Forge Road and it continues" - that's a poor way to start off a paragraph, especially since the previous paragraph doesn't technically mention an intersection. Try finding another way to say that, like "Upon crossing the Germantown Pike, the route..." Also, grammatically speaking, the sentence is confusing, as the latter "it" has the antecedent of "name", and surely the name isn't continuing. Finally, is there a link for the Germantown Pik or what route it is?
Reworded. Germantown Pike does not have a link because the road is not notable enough for its own article. Dough4872 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
"developments. The amount of development" - can you find a way to avoid the redundancy?
Changed first instance. Dough4872 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
"Past the PA 73 intersection, PA 363 continues past areas" - poor wording there, using "past" twice
Changed first instance. Dough4872 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it still says "Past the PA 73 intersection, PA 363". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  06:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Changed to "after". Dough4872 20:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You use "as" several times in inappropriate settings. "as" implies something is happening continuously, but that doesn't apply in these examples
"The amount of development increases as the road comes to the junction" - the road only comes to a junction at a very small location, so surely you mean "until the road comes to a junction"
Changed. Dough4872 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
"PA 363 continues past areas of housing developments to the west and farmland to the east as it reaches Morris Road." - so there is housing to the west and farming to the east when it actually reaches Morris Road? Or, again, do you mean "until"?
Changed to "before". Dough4872 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't the only case, though. "At this point, the route becomes the border between Towamencin Township to the northwest and Upper Gwynedd Township to the southeast as it passes under I-476 (Pennsylvania Turnpike Northeast Extension)." That implies the border of those townships is under I-476. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  06:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Tweaked. Dough4872 20:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Any link/route # for "Sumneytown Pike"?
No. Dough4872 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Why was the Betzwood Bridge closed?
Added. Dough4872 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason "Interchange." appears in the major intersections section? (I note the fullstop)
To indicate that the US 422 junction is an interchange and not an at-grade intersection, I have removed the period. Dough4872 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, my biggest issue is that there is only one reference that is not a map. I wouldn't even mind if there were offline sources, but I can't pass a GA that has just one source that has prose. There are major accessibility concerns. You shouldn't have to be able to understand cartography to be able to verify one of the sources. I have no idea how to check that to make sure it's correct. I won't fail it yet, since I'll give you a chance to find some prose sources. However, I don't think it helps Wikipedia to have an article that get its info from editors reading maps to get the information. That sounds awfully close to WP:OR. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  17:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
If you look at User:Moabdave/maps, there is an explanation of maps being used as sources in articles. To be fair, I have added a couple of non-map sources to the article. Dough4872 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I can see that. You do a good job noting when the map is from and thus reflecting the history. While I would love seeing more offline sources, I know the route isn't that notable, so I wouldn't expect a great comprehensive history. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  06:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
One thing I just noticed.

"PA 363 continues as a two-lane undivided road past more homes as it continues to the Ridge Pike intersection." - two uses of continues. Try being more creative ;)
Changed first instance. Dough4872 20:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a few more minor things to address, and I'll be happy to pass the GAN. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  06:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I'm passing. My only other comment is splitting up the history section into two paragraphs. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  00:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I know this is a GA, but since it's part of a GT nomination, I have some concerns with the article. 

Throughout its length, PA 363 is designated along Trooper Road, Ridge Pike, Park Avenue, and Valley Forge Road. - "Throughout its length" is really weird wording.
PA 363 extended west on present-day PA 23 west to end a short distance east of Valley Forge. - I know what this is trying to say, but the "west west east" sequence is confusing.
PA 363 resumes as a two-lane undivided road past more homes as it continues to the Ridge Pike intersection.  - "Resumes as" sounds as if the route had stopped and resumed its existence.
A short distance after crossing into Worcester Township, the route comes to the community of Fairview Village and crosses Germantown Pike in commercial areas. - Here's an illustration of my primary concern with the article. You tack on "in commercial/business areas" or something like that at least six times, which doesn't add any information and simply confuses and muddles the text. What is a "commercial area", anyway?
continues into agricultural areas with scattered residential neighborhoods. - Same thing. How do you define an "agricultural area"? Is it simply a rural patch with what appear to be vast farms? Or an actual farming complex? And "residential neighborhoods" is redundant.
he road passes through residential neighborhoods before entering commercial areas and crossing Sumneytown Pike.  - Again, this leaves me with no knowledge.
Juliancolton (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)