Talk:New Jersey Route 79

New Jersey Route 79 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
August 23, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

U.S. Roads: State highways / New Jersey Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal 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. state 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.

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

Comment[edit]

Route 79 North ends just at Route 34 , I thik Route 516 is a mile west of Route 516 --24.228.70.72 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey Route 79/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial comment[edit]

I will be reviewing this article. --Jameboy (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail criteria[edit]

I have reviewed the article against the quick-fail criteria:

The article appears to be well-referenced from reliable sources.
There do not appear to be any non-neutral or controversial statements.
There are no cleanup banners.
Checked history - no evidence of recent edit wars.
Article does not concern a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems here. I will therefore review the article in detail very soon. --Jameboy (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Overall the article is well-written and lacks any obvious major issues, so good work. I have checked all the links and have also made a few comments below. I have put the review on hold while these are addressed.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Couple of comments:

1) "passes through suburban residential areas with some rural areas of farms and woods" -- the with is a bit ambiguous: "passes through both suburban residential areas and rural areas" is perhaps better?
2) "Past this intersection, Route 79 continues north into farmland with some residences and businesses, with neighborhoods increasing along the road again." -- Could it be rephrased so there aren't two withs in the same sentence. This would make it clearer I think.

B. MoS compliance:
complies with WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, WP:JARGON, WP:AVOID, WP:EMBED. The WP:MOSFICT guideline is not applicable.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Fully referenced

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Has in-line citations where needed

C. No original research:
No evidence of OR
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Has the sorts of sections you would expect to see about a road: Route, History and Intersections

B. Focused:
The article is focused and summary sections are not required. Including the speed limits for every section of the road is possibly excessive detail though. Could the inclusion of speed limits be reduced to just those instances that are particularly significant (e.g. if the speed limit is particularly low or high, or if there is an accident blackspot or whatever)
I removed all the speed limits from the article. An editor had a concern with this on New Jersey Route 57, see the talk page. Dough4872 (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
The article remains neutral - no controversial or biased statements.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Checked history - article is stable with no evidence of edit wars.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Copyright status for map and photos seems in order. I'm a bit confused about the route number images though. For example, File:Circle sign 79.svg says "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it..." but it doesn't say who the copyright holder is (am I missing something here?)
SPUI made it, its in the {{self}} wrapper. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't pick up on that before, that seems fine though. --Jameboy (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Appropriate number of images for the length of article. Images have suitable captions.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold pending response to above comments

Thanks for the review. I have replied to the above changes. Dough4872 (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All comments addressed, promoting to Good Article, well done. If you have some time, please could you review one of the other nominated articles. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New Jersey Route 79. 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) 04:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]