Talk:U.S. Route 40 in New Jersey

U.S. Route 40 in New Jersey 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
December 18, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

U.S. Roads: U.S. 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. 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:

	A fact from this article was featured on the Did you know? section of the U.S. Roads Portal in January 2014.
	This article was the selected article of the New Jersey task force in July 2014.

New Jersey Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 40 in New Jersey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWOAP (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Please note that items may not be marked pass or fail, but the reviewer will put comments below the checklist to form his/her opinion on the category. --MWOAP (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Nice Job.

Notes[edit]

*Section 1.1- contains the word "some" in referring to residences. This is a weasel word and is not for an article.

- ~~Removed. ---Dough 48 72 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]
  - ~~If you did fix, there is another, refering to homes. --MWOAP (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]
    - ~~Fixed. ---Dough 48 72 03:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

*Section 1.1- routes cannot "leave". That is personification.
~~~~Fixed. ---Dough 48 72 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]~~
*Section 1.1- "A short distance after"... Could we be a little more specific?
~~~~Added mileage to clarify. ---Dough 48 72 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]~~
*Section 1.1- What is Harding Highway?
The name US 40 takes on past the NJ 48 intersection. ---Dough 48 72 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleared up, thanks. --MWOAP (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~References- What about reference links to laws and newspapers.~~
~~These links are not available. ---Dough 48 72 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]
~~10-4. --MWOAP (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
*Section 2.0- Second last sentence, loses neutrality "However"
~~~~Removed word. ---Dough 48 72 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]~~
*Intro- Intro (as I see a lot in transport articles) is too specific. It should summarize the article, not provide details.
~~~~Cut some information from lead. ---Dough 48 72 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]~~
*All over- Wikilinks only need to be done once per section.
~~~~I don't see any repeated links in the prose within same section. ---Dough 48 72 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]~~
*External Links- Need at least one, you could put NJDOT
~~Added a couple. ---Dough 48 72 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]
~~Still could use NJDOT. --MWOAP (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]
There are not any more relevant NJDOT links that can be added. The speed limits are from NJDOT. The route's SLD from NJDOT is already a reference, so it would be redunant to add as an external link. In addition, the NJDOT home page would seem irrelevant here. ---Dough 48 72 03:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date." (from User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet)
~~~~It seems to me they all have it where available. ---Dough 48 72 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]~~
*Portal links belong in the "See also" section. (from User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet)
~~~~By "Portal links", what are you referring to? ---Dough 48 72 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]~~
*All over- Withs are all over, see if we could be more specific. (i.e. "Using "with" as an additive link leads to wordy and awkward prose, e.g. "the town has ten councillors, with one being the district mayor" → "the town has ten councillors; one is the district mayor" " from User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet)
~~~~Removed several instances of "with". ---Dough 48 72 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]~~
*Avoid vague words, such as "various", "many", "several", "long", "a number of", "just", "very" and "almost". (from User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet)
~~~~Removed a couple of these words. ---Dough 48 72 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]~~
Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above suggestions given to this point. I have removed the two original research tags as they are supported by the SLD and Google references. ---Dough 48 72 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
ok, still finishing up my review, (have to check sources, which takes a while, and have been busy). Could use a little more cleanup as above, I may post more here. --MWOAP (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]