Talk:New Jersey Route 124

New Jersey Route 124 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 7, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
September 11, 2013	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

U.S. Roads: State highways / New Jersey Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics

U.S. state highways

Locations

New Jersey

This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.

This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Article recognition:

	This article was the selected article of the New Jersey task force in October 2014.

New Jersey Mid‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey Route 124/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Nice and neat article but one issue before it passes to GA.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
~~You need metric conversions in the Major intersections area.~~
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I would recommend some "blue link" reduction throughout the article. Several links are repeated. I also notice that you've a lot of other articles waiting for review. If the other articles need metric conversions too, now would be a good time to take care of those. --Brad (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other guy can do the blue links. But the metrics are not necessary as the US main system isn't metric (see WP:USRD/STDS).Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 01:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, I have not overused links in the article. It follows what is called for at WP:MOSLINKS in terms only being linked in the infobox, lead, once in the prose, and the table. Also, as Mitch said, it is not standard for metric conversions to be included in the Major intersections table. Dough4872 (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bluelink problem isn't going to hold the article up from GA; I will gladly pass it. However, Morristown is linked 6 times in the article. The infobox alone has Springfield Twp linked 4 times all directly underneath each other. The blue is distracting and in a lot of cases, unnecessary. Pic captions have links to places that are already linked in the section text etc. --Brad (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey Route 124/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

There are several SPS used to write the history.
The RD needs some work - use abbreviations, and cut some of the unnecessary detail.

I will give a week for changes to be made; if no efforts are made within a week this will be delisted. --Rs chen 7754 06:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the route description and switched road names to abbreviations. T C N7JM 12:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the SPSs from the article. Dough 48 72 00:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing since this has been fixed. --Rs chen 7754 00:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Jersey Route 124. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]