Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/New Jersey Route 18

New Jersey Route 18

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article was not promoted.

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class

Nominator's comments: This article was briefly promoted to A-class by User:Qst with the edit summary "certainly meets this", even though at the time, it certainly didn't, given that I don't think it even met Good Article criteria. However, given that the concerns with the first Good Article nomination have finally been met, I figured I'd give this article the opportunity to be properly assessed by those in the know.

Nominated by: NORTH ^talk 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see the junction lists consolidated into a single table. Also, the history focuses almost exclusively on improvements to the expressway. There is no discussion of early roads along the alignment and of the initial planning and early construction of the expressway. --Polaron | Talk 02:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Review for NJ 18 - Most of my questions are to point out ambiguities - I'm sure we all can figure out the answer, but those with little background on roads might not.
- It really ends at Hoes Lane? lol
- disseminates = scatters widely. Not a good word...
- 2nd longest freeway... not counting turnpikes and whatnot, I assume?
- Can you get a more updated date in terms of construction beginning on the extension to I-287?
- 1.1 - maybe wikilink partial cloverleaf interchange?
- for a short time --> for a short distance
- Don't just use the number 18 - say Route 18 or something like that
- Clarify - Brighton going southbound... on the freeway, or meaning that you can only go southbound on Brighton?
- Exit 8 on Route 18?
- parallel ... routing?
- Milepost 9.22 on Route 18?
- The exits are only southbound - clarify
- Afterwards probably shouldn't be where it is
- Comes up?
- See if you can wikilink cloverleaf interchange
- Continues the rest of the way? Probably should say that it crossed the county line
- Which brings you back - never address the reader in an article. It could be changed to "one" but I would see if you could rephrase that entirely as "one" is a bit weak too.
- County Route 700 begins two sentences in a row.
- Going southbound - clarify
- For a distance after ... intersection - not needed
- County Routes 535?
- You mention the ending point of the concurrency but not the start. Also, this is poorly phrased - shouldn't use a comma and then the word "until"
- County Route 535 continues... running concurrently with Route 18?
- Too repetitive with "is at the next traffic light."
- Route 18 begins two sentences in a row
- Route 27 interchanges... choppy sentence.
- Just past... well it still is there. See if you can rewrite that sentence.
- 2 - see if you can merge the NJDOT had... and the next sentence to avoid using "they"
- which would have gone through Piscataway and terminated at ...
- consumed by 1970; however,...
- Has FHWA been wikilinked yet?
- cease construction on what?
- uncapitalize state and federal
- What was the outcome of the studies?
- See if you can merge the first two sentences of the next paragraph "With the environmental problems..." and "The construction was..."
- A missing... begins a sentence twice. The second sentence beginning with that is structured poorly.
- north from River road to where?
- had plans? What happened to them?
- 3 - Second sentence is written poorly, actually...
- The entire section probably needs restructuring - sentences are bland and too explicit, with the prose being really simple - it needs to be written to a more formal standard.
- 4 - I don't see any issues with the tables but of course you want to double check it against WP:ELG.
- The strengths of this article are its comprehensive nature.
- The weaknesses of this article are its future section as well as a need for prose cleanup in the other sections. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs more early history. There's an Old Bridge Turnpike paralleling it near South River, and it appears to merge with it towards New Brunswick - presumably the state built the highway to bypass that. The rest looks like a new alignment, except for the Route 35 bypass. What's with the tunnel in New Brunswick? Did this part destroy any of the Delaware and Raritan Canal? The prose needs work too. --NE2 03:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of the above. I purposely left the suggestion field blank when I nominated this article; it was more just a procedural thing to see where it stood. I think Polaron and NE2 make very good points regarding the history section. I think this article kind of died once it got to the point where we got all the information we could online, which isn't really enough for a Featured Article, but is more than enough for a Good Article. Rschen's suggestions will go a long way towards fixing the prose that I glossed over when I gave it a quick copyedit before nominating it. Thanks all. -- Kéiryn (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC) (formerly NORTH)[reply]

I've expanded the junction list to include all intersections with jughandles (and all interchanges, of which a few were missing). --NE2 17:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have all the above issues been resolved? --Holderca1^talk 16:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope... haven't touched the article recently, got distracted by other tasks. -- Kéiryn 16:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.