Talk:New Jersey Route 27

Comment

Maybe someone can creatively come up with a simple manner of clearing up the matter of Route 27 in Elizabeth. Route 27 travels through many streets in this city. It travels (southward) from Newark Ave to North Broad Street, then heads west on Westfield Ave. The route then heads south again on Chilton St. until it reaches Rahway Ave. It heads west on Rahway Ave where it crosses the Roselle/Linden border. Rahway Ave. becomes St. Georges Avenue at this point. Thanx Mojerzey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mojerzey (talk • contribs) 05:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

North? Why would Route 27 be considered major at Route 287 in Metuchen there's only one entrance to 287 Southbound both ways on 27 and yet, Route 287 as only one entrance to Route 27? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 17:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Route 27 is not a major junction on I-287's infobox. I-287 is a major junction on Route 27's infobox because it is an interstate highway. -- NORTH ^talk 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I recently fleshed out the Route Description section a bit, although I'm curious to know what else people want to see here. Also, according to both Mapquest and Google Maps, Route 27 and County Route 514 are concurrent as they cross the Raritan River in New Brunswick. Can someone confirm this? Thanks. Sunweb52 (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey Route 27/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

A preliminary review will be completed in a few hours. Please be patient. --Polaron | Talk 16:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Lead section -- Looks good. I've made some minor changes for clarity.
• Route description section

  Well-written? -- The current way the route description is written makes it hard to read through. Would it be possible to rewrite it such that it doesn't have the feel of just reading a list of intersections? I would suggest removing some of the county route intersections in the route description unless those routes are heavily used for more than local area traffic. I would also think removing the super-precise mileposts would help readability somewhat. Grammar is generally good. There are a few minor nitpicks that I will fix myself at the end of the review.

  Factually accurate? -- Generally good. There are, however, parts of the route description ascribed to Google Maps that are bordering on original research, e.g. making an interpretation that an area is commercial or residential or urban or suburban. This is probably ok for GA but this should be improved for higher article classes.

  Broad in converage? -- As mentioned above, the route description has too much unnecessary detail in my opinion. Lose some of the minor intersections and lessen the use of milepost numbers unless needed to understand the junction. Can we add some additional attractions along the route? How much traffic uses this road and what is the general function of the road given that it is parallel to US 1, the GSP, and the NJTP? The road also runs closely parallel to railroad tracks. I think that should be emphasized a bit more.

  Neutral and stable? -- Good

  Images? -- Good

• History section

  Well-written? -- Prose is generally good. However, the sentence "With the creation of the U.S. Highway System, U.S. Route 206] was designated along the portion of route between Trenton and Princeton and U.S. Route 1 was also designated along the length of Route 27 until 1931, ..." needs some work. First, US 206 designated several years after the U.S. Highway System was first implemented. This is better split as two sentences, with the time of designation clearly indicated. Also, in the next sentence, "concurrency it shared with" is redundant. A link to one-way pair here is also appropriate.

  Factually accurate? -- Good but clarification on year of US 206 and US 1 designation and removal is needed. If you can find alternative sources for Refs. 6, 7, 9, 10, that would be better. Linking directly to the renumbering laws and or citing various old maps would be a preferable way of sourcing this information.

  Broad in coverage? -- The Route 27 right of way appears to have been also utilized by several 19th-century turnpikes (see List of turnpikes in New Jersey). At a minimum, these should be mentioned in the history section. If possible, a short explanation might even be called for. Do we know when the one way couplet in Elizabeth was established? Have there been any other realignments of the route, especially in cities?

  Neutral and stable? -- Good

  Images? -- None but not really needed in this section

• Overall comments -- There are two major but easily fixable issues that I think need to be addressed before this article can become a Good Article: (1) Too much unnecessary detail in the route description and (2) Inclusion of turnpike history. There are also minor issues that are not necessary for the article to pass but I would recommend be done anyway, including clarifying the U.S. Route designation history, inclusion of any realignments, adding traffic and functional class information, additional attractions, alternative references. I am placing the article on hold to allow for fixes. --Polaron | Talk 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have gone back and made changes to the article. Dough4872 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The changes look good. I have made some additional removals of what I think are unnecessary milepost numbers in the route description. I'll go over the article again later this afternoon to make sure there are no typos, missing/extraneous commas, etc., then I think this article is good to go. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 18:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have passed the article after another reading. Congratulations. --Polaron | Talk 19:05, 13 January 2009 (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) 06:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Dough4872 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New Jersey Route 27. 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/20110514153745/http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/maps/1927tt2.jpg to http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/maps/1927tt2.jpg
• 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)