Talk:New Jersey Route 168

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNew Jersey Route 168 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
DateProcessResult
October 30, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Wow, 1 sentence[edit]

This is not ready for GAN. You cover 1 sentence about the turnpike predating NJ 168, and hardly cover the Black Horse Pike as well. I suggest expanding before it gets reviewed. If I had to review, I'd fail it.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added as much historical information that I could find. It is important to note that there is a separate article for the Black Horse Pike and much of the history of that road can be covered there. Dough4872 (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no information between 1820-something to 1927, which is not comprehensive. :| - Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 15:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Black Horse Pike was established in 1855, so there is information within this time period. Dough4872 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still leaves 72 years. When was the BHP abolished for example? When did the state gain control?Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 15:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the year the county took over the Black Horse Pike. Also, the state gained control when NJ 42 was legislated in 1927. Dough4872 (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've read this about 6 times since you've added it, and I still don't think this is suitable for a road that is so very important in New Jersey.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 01:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is only GAN, which just need to be reasonably broad (which it is), not FAC, where "every" aspect needs to be covered. So I feel the information I provided in the History is adequate for GA. It would need more if I was willing to take the article farther. Dough4872 (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is the comprehensiveness of the article in the review. :| - NJ 168 is very important road, and should have good detail.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thoroughly cover the route description and I mention the major aspects in the history, including four sentences about the road before 1927 (versus one when this discussion started). I think I have covered every major point about the route. If there is anything else that you feel needs to be added (besides the early history), suggest it or be bold and add it to the article yourself. Dough4872 (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey Route 168/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

  • The second sentence is four and a half lines on my screen, and far to long for anyone to grasp.
  • One really tricky detail is that south-east (where the latter modifies the former) use hyphens (-), while north–south (indicating disjunction or from to) use an endash (–). (I know that's picky, but it's nice to know ;) Fixed.
  • I know the article needs an image for GA, but File:I-295 NJ 168 exit.jpg is pretty bad and for my sake I would let the map qualify as illustration. But I'll leave that for your judgment.
  • Looking at the history, the sources and the comment by Mitch on the talk page, I will allow the article to pass. I am more concerned about the lack of post-1959 history than a gap in the last half of the 19th century. It is also a matter of there actually being available secondary sources to establish history. I agree that it is a bit little for FA thought.

Could you look into that one sentence, and I'll pass the article. Arsenikk (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I split the sentence into three. Dough4872 (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Jersey Route 168. 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) 03:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Jersey_Route_168&oldid=1204262732"