Talk:New Jersey Route 66

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (February 2018)
Good articleNew Jersey Route 66 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
September 8, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Uh... edit

Why do we not cover more than 1 sentence of 33-35 Link? This shouldn't be a Good Article nominee when there is something apparent missing.Mitch/HC32 18:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I put in all the information about Route 33-35 Link I can find. There is no legislation for this particular route. Dough4872 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
....Mitch/HC32 00:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey Route 66/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    See below
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    See below
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

1 edit

  • "Route 66 is a state highway located in Monmouth County in the U.S. state of New Jersey." doesn't flow, the two in just makes it sound clunky.
  • Consider unpiping American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as a lot of readers may not be familiar with the ARRA.

2 edit

  • All references use citation templates.
  • Links are all valid.
  • There is a lack of secondary sources, which are a requirement to pass general notability guidelines.
  • Refs:
    • 1: SLD is a good primary source.
    • 2: GMaps. Make sure you read User:Davemeistermoab/maps, appears to be fine though.
    • 3: Identifies that the outlet malls is along the route.
    • 4: primary source to identify renumbering. Okay.
    • 5: primary source
    • 6: Blog. Non WP:RS
    • 7: Blog. Non RS.
    • 8: Press release.
    • 9: Press release.

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above changes. I modified some of the information that was not available elsewhere but the press releases. Dough4872 (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Passing. --Admrboltz (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

External links modified (February 2018) edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Jersey Route 66. 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) 04:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply