![]() | County Route 676 (Middlesex County, New Jersey) was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please add more citations to the article. If no reliable sources are found I will request a GA review. Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Mitch azenia (8300+edits) 01:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There are still a number of problems with this article, but they may be minor enough to fix quickly in time to pass. The prose definitely still needs some work. A lot of it still isn't written in an encylcopedic tone. For example, "The Riverview Avenue part of CR 676 is the second shortest part of the route and the farthest south, lasting only 0.19 miles with four small intersections." You generally wouldn't hear someone refer to the "Riverview Avenue part" of a route, and the phrase "four small intersections" could be corrected simply by changing the word "small" to "minor". I suggest someone other than the major contributor going through the article to perform copyedits. (In addition to tone, the references are inconsistently placed, with missing spaces and the like.)
There are still some problem with references. One of them is the opposite problem the article had before. It's probably not necessary to cite the SLD 18 different times, as much of them aren't "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". That being said, there are a select few sentences that probably need to be removed and/or cited.
I think the major problem with this article that may prevent it from being a good article is being "broad in its coverage". A lot of the route description section seems to just be transcribed from maps and/or the SLD. The major problem though, is the history section. When you read it carefully, you realize that it doesn't say anything about the history of County Route 676. It's all about the history of Duclos Lane, which is just one section of the route. When did the road become a county highway? Did it have a different number before Middlesex County adopted 600-series numbers? Was it all commissioned at the same time, or were some sections added to the route at a later date?
I think in order to be a good article, it needs to have far more information on the history of the route, rather than the road.
Finally, as a very minor thing with the images, the two photographs should be cropped to eliminate the black background visible around the edges. -- NORTH talk 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Article looks pretty good. Here a few minor things to fix:
Deigo ( talk) 14:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I still don't understand the end of the Woodbridge Avenue section. Regarding the map, I didn't see it at first. For the history section, I think it needs a date that it was designated. Deigo ( talk) 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
My input was requested, so a few things that I noticed were:
I hope this helps, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 18:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
PASS Deigo ( talk) 21:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | County Route 676 (Middlesex County, New Jersey) was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please add more citations to the article. If no reliable sources are found I will request a GA review. Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Mitch azenia (8300+edits) 01:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There are still a number of problems with this article, but they may be minor enough to fix quickly in time to pass. The prose definitely still needs some work. A lot of it still isn't written in an encylcopedic tone. For example, "The Riverview Avenue part of CR 676 is the second shortest part of the route and the farthest south, lasting only 0.19 miles with four small intersections." You generally wouldn't hear someone refer to the "Riverview Avenue part" of a route, and the phrase "four small intersections" could be corrected simply by changing the word "small" to "minor". I suggest someone other than the major contributor going through the article to perform copyedits. (In addition to tone, the references are inconsistently placed, with missing spaces and the like.)
There are still some problem with references. One of them is the opposite problem the article had before. It's probably not necessary to cite the SLD 18 different times, as much of them aren't "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". That being said, there are a select few sentences that probably need to be removed and/or cited.
I think the major problem with this article that may prevent it from being a good article is being "broad in its coverage". A lot of the route description section seems to just be transcribed from maps and/or the SLD. The major problem though, is the history section. When you read it carefully, you realize that it doesn't say anything about the history of County Route 676. It's all about the history of Duclos Lane, which is just one section of the route. When did the road become a county highway? Did it have a different number before Middlesex County adopted 600-series numbers? Was it all commissioned at the same time, or were some sections added to the route at a later date?
I think in order to be a good article, it needs to have far more information on the history of the route, rather than the road.
Finally, as a very minor thing with the images, the two photographs should be cropped to eliminate the black background visible around the edges. -- NORTH talk 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Article looks pretty good. Here a few minor things to fix:
Deigo ( talk) 14:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I still don't understand the end of the Woodbridge Avenue section. Regarding the map, I didn't see it at first. For the history section, I think it needs a date that it was designated. Deigo ( talk) 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
My input was requested, so a few things that I noticed were:
I hope this helps, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 18:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
PASS Deigo ( talk) 21:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 07:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)