Talk:New Jersey Route 24

Unused cloverleaf exchange?
In the first section, it says
 * The section across Chatham to shortly past the still-existing unused cloverleaf interchange at the Florham Park borough line,

I used to live there...there's no cloverleaf exchange there at all. OK, wrong...finally figured out what it was. But it would be useful for someone to insert the appropriate coord template as a "reference" for this information – here's a link from google local, take the coords from that. —lensovet–talk – 06:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about a picture? I just took one; when I get home I can add it. Daniel Case 17:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome! However, I'd like to see both the coord reference and the picture, because the coord reference gives you a real map that you can play with... —lensovet–talk – 17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Picture's in. Coord refs will come later. Daniel Case 02:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment
Well, very nice. This is the 3rd article, with 17 and 33 that i think are B-Class. Some more info and sourcing, then this article can be GA nominated.Mitchazenia (7600+edits) 20:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

USRD GA audit
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) 04:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dough4872 (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reinsertion of Irrelevant Source Citation
This article has a statement, "It resurfaced in the early 1990s as a bypass completely around Morristown that would rejoin the old two-lane route in Mendham Township; it was scrapped in 1993 due to opposition from officials in Morris and Mendham Townships"

There is cited source for this statement:

1. Cichowski, John (November 18, 1992). "Four-Lane Route 24 Opens Amid Hoopla". The Bergen Record.

The cited Record article makes absolutely NO mention about the proposed future bypass around these 2 specific towns or that officials from both towns objected and the plans were scrapped in 1993. It would be pretty hard for a news article from 1992 to report on scrapping plans in 1993. It should be removed as a citation.

The only reference from this 1992 Record article is:


 * "Officials [no specific towns mentioned] said it is unlikely that the state Department of Transportation will revive abandoned plans to continue the highway west of Route 287 [no indication of its final destination], because communities [no specific towns mentioned] have been unable to agree on an alignment."

I removed the Record citation on 2/12/13 and added the citation below:

1. http://www.nycroads.com/roads/NJ-24/ NJ 24 Freeway. Scroll down to “Unbuilt” Section.

This new citation is a suitable source for the referenced statement since it indicated:

"Talk of expanding the NJ 24 Freeway west from Morristown to Mendham Township resurfaced in the early 1990's with the completion of the Chatham-to-Morristown section. Officials from Morris Township and Mendham Township protested the freeway extension, which remained on state plans. In response, the NJDOT permanently shelved the western extension to Mendham Township in 1993."

Dough4872 undid this change without any explanation.

When I added the change back in, Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ undid my change without any explanation.

Dough4872 needs to explain why The Record citation, which makes NO mention of any of the specific details for this future extension and could NOT forecast in 1992 that the plans were scrapped in 1993, should be reinserted when the NJ 24 Freeway website that I added fully covers the referenced statement. Any comments from Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ would be welcomed. Wondering55 (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NYCRoads is a WP:SPS. Try finding a reliable source.  Dough 48  72  15:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, the Record article should be removed as a source citation for that referenced statement since the Record article clearly does not support ANY of the referenced details.
 * The nycroads.com is considered a reliable source since Wikipedia users have cited statements in well over a hundred articles from this source. In fact, feedback from Steve Anderson, as the author of nycroads.com, was used in a Robert Moses article.  All nycroads.com articles are also provided with multiple reputable source citations.  The nycroads.com should be able to be used, unless you are planning to delete it as a source in well over a hundred other Wikipedia articles.  If you still have objections, let me know.Wondering55 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that this article uses self-published sources (anything from Steve Alpert or Steve Anderson), it will have to be delisted as a Good Article. GAs can not use SPSs under the GA criteria, so if the sources are not replaced within a week, I'll delist the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement sourced by the SPS.  Dough 48  72  14:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, contentions by Imzadi and deletion action by Dough4872 are without merit since reliability of nycroads (by Steve Anderson) and alpsroads (by Steve Alpert) as reliable sources has been raised, resolved, and accepted by Wikipedia users in Talk:New Jersey Route 24. In addition, I responded to Dough4872 concerns in my last post and considered the issue resolved based on allowance of nycroads as a reliable source for the referenced statement since he raised no further substantiated reasons. I will need to find out how to address a situation where users do not address their concerns in a Talk page on a specific revision or ignore previous resolution of issues, while making contradictory statements, and proceed with their own unsubstantiated actions.


 * It is also interesting to note the contradictions in that Imzaldi NEVER raised any issue about GA status based on reliability of sourcing by Steve Alpert, which includes direct input by Steve Anderson, in this article in the 5 years since this issue was first raised 5 years ago. It is also interesting and contradictory to note that Dough4872 deleted nycroads source by Steve Anderson, but left in alpsroads sources by Steve Alpert and Steve Anderson, even though Imzadi cited both sources supposedly as unreliable sources.


 * Imzadi and Dough4872 would need to defend their positions, which are contradictory to the stated facts and Wikipedia practices.Wondering55 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By the definitions of WP:SPS, both the Steve Alpert and Steve Anderson sources are not considered reliable. I have replaced the SPSs with reliable sources such as the straight-line diagrams from NJDOT, newspaper articles, and legislation.  Dough 48  72  15:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow! You continue to delete sources, which were previously accepted in Talk:New Jersey Route 24 and made further changes without addressing any of them in this Talk page that was specifically opened to address these issues. Both the Steve Alpert and Steve Anderson sources were accepted as reliable sources, even when WP:SPS was considered in Talk:New Jersey Route 24. I don't think Wikipedia practices allow you to proceed with unauthorized changes based on your own personal positions while they are being addressed or have been previously addressed in a Talk page.  You will need to defend your contradictory and warlike editing when I also raise it on a Wikipedia administrative page.Wondering55 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The view of those sources as SPS's have changed since 2008. They are not viewed as reliable sources.  Dough 48  72  17:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet, these 2 sources remain in 100's of Wikipedia articles and this specific article was NEVER changed even though the issue of reliability of these sources based on WP:SPS was raised and resolved without any further contention for 5 years. How is anyone suppose to know what is allowed based on these facts, which seem to support the exact opposite of what you are stating? I would appreciate if you could reference me more than one definitive source that supports your position. In the end, I would like to work with you if we can find mutual understanding.Wondering55 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Standards, especially sourcing standards, have gone up an awful lot since 2008. --Rschen7754 18:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The counterpart for Michigan and the highways of the Great Lakes State is http://www.michiganhighways.org, which has been removed from all of the GA or above articles as anything more than an external link. Yes, there are still a handful of articles, and when I first started nominating articles in 2008 for GA and A-Class status, that website was accepted as ok, but since then, we've refined our understanding of "reliability" in the Wikipedia sense to exclude such articles. That some articles still use unacceptable sources is no excuse to use them on articles judged to be of better quality. Don't drag the good down, raise the bad up.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with improving quality of sources and articles. Let's also remember that no one raised the issues about non-reliability of that specific nycroads source in the more than 6 weeks when I first inserted it in the article and it was removed, and in 3 weeks when I first raised it as a Talk issue. Let's also remember that no one raised the issues of non-reliability of alpsroads, even though Talk:New Jersey Route 24, which needs to be either archived off the regular Talk page or correctly updated, allowed it for 5 years and did NOT indicate that nycroads and alpsroads are no longer considered reliable sources.
 * If you can provide me with any internal Wikipedia sourced page that indicated why alpsroads and nycroads (which are not simply self-published, but also rely on many different contributors and source citations) are no longer considered reliable sources, I would appreciate it.
 * Please also advise if any referenced details in a Wikipedia article that relies on alpsroads or nycroads should be immediately deleted as soon as it is found, which doesn't seem right, or if a public effort (Perhaps in the article's Talk page, which can remain open for how long? Hopefully, more than a week) should be made to let other users know exactly what details need to be referenced in each article so an alternate reliable source may be found.Wondering55 (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The old GA review shouldn't be altered as it forms part of the historic record of this article. In short, the various "roadgeek" websites, like NYC Roads, Alps Roads, Michigan Highways, etc. have not yet met the criteria for the exception to the SPS section of the verifiabilty policy. Quoting that policy, "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (emphasis in original) Can you demonstrate how these website maintainers are considered experts in this field, and where they have been previously published by third-party publications? Unless and until that happens, they need to be replaced. The fact that the project was more lax about applying this policy, as required by the GA criteria, back in 2008 doesn't mean this article can continue to ignore policy and the applicable criteria.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The GA Review Talk page should have been updated and can be updated with a brief comment that would be currently dated regarding non-reliability of any specific roadgeek sites. It would not affect the historical record of the article or Talk page, but would bring interested users in better compliance with GA review. I also see the article passed GA review in 2009 that reinforced that alpsroads and nycroads were acceptable as a reliable source. At some point, someone needs to recognize this issue became a self-fulfilling, unintended problem in the manner it was handled.
 * Also, remember that just because something is printed in a newspaper or comes from an "official" expert source does not necessarily make it true or accurate. I have seen too many published newspaper and other "official" sources that simply had mistaken information or were contradicted by facts from other reliable sources.Wondering55 (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please also advise if any referenced details in a Wikipedia article that relies on alpsroads or nycroads should be immediately deleted as soon as it is found, which doesn't seem right, or if a public effort (Perhaps in the article's Talk page, which can remain open for how long? Hopefully, more than a week) should be made to let other users know exactly what details need to be referenced in each article so an alternate reliable source may be found. You might want to raise this issue with any project road team that your are involved in. I wish you well and will abide by your recommendations.Wondering55 (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally once a GAN review is done, it's left alone, unaltered. If anyone is curious about the current status of the reliability of the sources previously used in the article, this discussion thread is sufficient. As for 2009, this is 2013, and now we are saying that the current interpretation of policy and the GA criteria is that NYC Roads and Alps Roads do not meet the requirements. Past mistakes get corrected, and we move forward.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is disappointing to find out that there are still dozens of past mistakes in dozens of articles that still cite alpsroads.net and nycroads.com since they have no longer been considered reliable sources for some time. I am just a novice Wikipedia user and yet I could see how these past mistakes could easily have been identified and cleaned up in less than a week's time. The road project team should make this a priority in order to avoid future confusion and contradictions. I would also suggest opening up a new Talk page with a simple title," Unreliable Sources from Road Geek Sites, including alpsroads.net and nycroads.com", with a simple statement, such as "Self-published road geek sites, such as nycroads.com and alsproads.net can no longer be used as reliable reference sources based on the latest criteria in WP:SPS". It would simplify the issue for those users, who might get confused by the GA Review Talk page, which is outdated based on current source policy, or would overlook or not be interested in the large amount of back and forth discussions in this Talk page, which originally started out on a different topic.Wondering55 (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Jersey Route 24. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031111034/http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/images/1927_routes.gif to http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/images/1927_routes.gif
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628183145/http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1953_New_Jersey_state_highway_renumbering to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1953_New_Jersey_state_highway_renumbering

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)