Talk:U.S. Route 30 in New Jersey

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 30 in New Jersey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Version # 333694277 was the subject of this review unless otherwise stated.

Well-written criterion (including MoS elements)

I will provide some passages here based on my comments without revising the article itself.

The prose is very dense with some repetition, but this is difficult to avoid in an article of this type. More reliance on lists and tables and less on "prosification" of list content could be attempted.

There are a couple of phrases in bold which should be italicized (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface):

• Intro, paragraph 1 → White Horse Pike → replace bold with italics
• Intro, paragraph 2 → pre-1927 Route 3 → replace bold with italics
• Intro, paragraph 2 → Route 43 → replace bold with italics
• Intro, paragraph 2 → Route 56 → replace bold with italics
  • From what I thought, redirects to an article should be bolded in the lead section. I guess I could put the terms in italics or just leave them in regular type. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Introduction should be less dense and more "accessible" than it currently reads.

The second paragraph of the Introduction should probably be summarized for the Introduction and merged with the History section.

I cut some excess information from the lead but left enough to provide a decent summary. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a handful of places where abbreviations should be spelled out.

• "AADT" in the last paragraph of the Camden County section
  • Fixed. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• "NJDOT" in the last paragraph of the History section — which should also be wikilinked (New Jersey Department of Transportation)
  • In the Camden County section, I linked New Jersey Department of Transportation and mentioned the abbreviation. Therefore, the abbreviation in the History section should be adequate as it was defined earlier. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy and verifiability

Looking at the references

in general, I am not checking specific facts, but rather access to and appropriateness of cited materials; "Available online" and "Not available online" refer to the current availability to readers given current citation format. Note that where a reference is suggested to be removed, the information which is supported by that citation should also be removed.

1. Available online

   static versions @ archive.org.

   Archive.org has several historical copies of the pdf. The version current as of the time of review accessible from the article has a "Date last inventoried" footer note of "April 2008". The 2008 versions are listed at archive.org, but not accessible due to technical reasons.

   I have submitted the current PDF to WebCite; the WebCite url is http://www.webcitation.org/5mHq98JaT .

   SUGGESTION — include archive url in the citation

2. Available online

   static versions @ archive.org.

   As with Reference 1, several historical copies are available at archive.org. Also like Reference 1, the latter day copies are not accessible for viewing due to technical faults. The "Date last inventoried" footer note for this PDF is "May 2008".

   I have submitted the current PDF to WebCite; the WebCite url is http://www.webcitation.org/5mHqUavRS .

   SUGGESTION — include archive url in the citation

   Usually, it is helpful to keep the current SLD as the reader can reference to it. If any major changes were to occur to the route, they could be made to this article according to what the current SLD says. Despite this, it possibly would not hurt to change to the archive URL. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

3. Available online

   no static versions available

   Though Google Maps may be considered a reliable source, using it as a reference is questionable in my opinion due to its potential for change without warning and the inability to archive in static form a particular version.

   SUGGESTION — Relegate the Google Maps reference to the External Links section and replace references to Google Maps with references to static (or archivable) sources.

   That is one major problem I have with Google Maps. When their cartography changes, the route directions get messued up and require fixing. In this scenario, I could constantly keep an eye for changes to the URL or possibly use a more fixed latitude and longitude showing the entire route. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

4. Not available online

   The Rutgers University IRIS resource (information and access), which includes cataloged theses, does not contain a reference to this work; however, there is a note that not all theses are cataloged, including those for Bachelor's of Fine Arts.

   Browsing the Camden County Historical Society site did not reveal a reference to this work.

   SUGGESTION — include additional information which would indicate where the work is available; for instance, if the work is found in the Historical Society's Library, this should be indicated.

   This reference existed in the article before I had improved it. The reference was added in this revision. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

5. Available online

   no static versions available at archive.org

   a copy has been archived at WebCite; see http://www.webcitation.org/5mHtfgPwM

   The value in the text does not match the values in the referenced file. The in-text value is "10,758" while there are two values in the reference, East at 11,038 and West at 11,318. The in-text value should be either corrected or removed. I would suggest removal as this is a single statistic for one point in the roadway (BRIARCLIFF RD & COOPER RD). There are two other points of measurement on the roadway (MAPLE ST & 3RD ST; ABT 0.5 MI E OF DELILAH RD,CO646) and there is nothing intrinsically special about the chosen point for reporting in the article.

   SUGGESTION — remove this particular, isolated piece of information. Alternatively, include a section on the traffic volume for the Route through New Jersey and include stats from the three available monitoring points. If calculations are made on the raw data to arrive at revised figures, indicate what calculation method was used.

   I removed the traffic count entirely from the article as it is not that useful in the route description anyway. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

6. Available online via Google Books

   Unfortunately, this is just an index to legislation rather than the text of legislation itself.

   SUGGESTION — More citation meta-data is needed; specifically chapter and/or page numbers.

   Found page number. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

7. Available online; snippet free, while full text requires payment

   The access url for reaching the snippet (at least one method) could be " http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AC&p_theme=ac&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=%28white%20horse%29%20and%20%28black%20horse%29%20and%20%28answer%20guy%29%20AND%20date%28all%29&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=%28%22white%20horse%22%29%20and%20%28%22black%20horse%22%29%20and%20%28%22answer%20guy%22%29&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no ". This is an advanced search engine string for the publisher's news archives. The referenced article appears as item 1, shows the snippet, and has a link to a required registration / login page and to a full-text-for-pay page.

   SUGGESTION — If the editor drew the information from a print version of the publication, a page number should be added. An ISSN or OCLC code should be added so that people might be able to find the paper in a library via WorldCat; see, for instance, OCLC 55506609. As only a single fact is cited, a quoted passage from the publication would be useful to add.

   I had originally got this information from the Press of Atlantic City's website when the entire article was available to read for free. I had included a URL to the article, but it is now a dead link. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

8. Available online via Google Books

   Very good link; the link provided leads directly to the cited passage.

   SUGGESTION — Include page number (144) in citation.

   Added page number. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

9. Available online

   static versions @ archive.org

   Unfortunately, the authors of the website do not cite any references for their historical statements—stating "from my recollection" or "from discussion with my grandparents" (oral history) would even be useful. However, the "Thanks" page could be considered a sources listing.

   SUGGESTION — Include one of the archive urls to serve as a static referenced version.

   I changed it to the archive URL. By the way, the information from this source is fine as it comes from state reports. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

10. Not available online

    SUGGESTION — I would suggest citing http://www.us-highways.com/1925bpr.htm (at archive.org) which includes the 1925 report as the primary source.

    Cited. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

11. Available online as a map in Wikimedia Commons

    SUGGESTION — Revise the external URL to an internal one → [[:Image:1926us.jpg]].

    SUGGESTION — Add a note after the citation saying something like this → "Usage Note: Access the full resolution version of the image and focus on Salt Lake City, Utah where the western end of Route 30 can be seen."

    Added note. I don't think there is a way to include an interal wikilink in the cite map template. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

12. Available online

    no static version available

    This comes from the same site as #9 above.

    I have archived the image at WebCite as it was not available from archive.org; see http://www.webcitation.org/5mHzmtayF .

    SUGGESTION — include archive url in citation

    Done. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

13. Not available online

    The text of the Laws of 1927 is available on-line from Rutgers University. The citation could be revised to refer to the text beginning at http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/cgi-bin/diglib.cgi?collect=njleg&file=151&page=0712&zoom=55 . Appropriate meta-data regarding the scanned publication should also be included.

    SUGGESTION — cite the online version

    Cited. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

14. Available online

    static copies available at archive.org

    SUGGESTION — include one of the archive urls in the citation

    Fixed. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

15. Not available online

    As with #13 above, this is available online; the specific page referenced can be found at http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/cgi-bin/diglib.cgi?collect=njleg&file=162&page=0203&zoom=55

    SUGGESTION — Cite the online version.

    Fixed. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

16. Not available online

    As with #13 above, this is available online; the specific page referenced can be found at http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/cgi-bin/diglib.cgi?page=511&collect=njleg&file=162&zoom=55

    SUGGESTION — Cite the online version.

    Fixed. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

17. Not available online

    As with #13 above, this is available online; the specific page referenced can be found at http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/cgi-bin/diglib.cgi?page=11&collect=njleg&file=169&zoom=55

    SUGGESTION — Cite the online version.

    Fixed. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

18. Available online via WikiSource

    The contributor of the WikiSource item has indicated the source of the text. Therefore, it is unverifiable. It is likely that this is found somewhere in the 1953 laws or 1953 additional laws texts available via linkage from http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/njleg/index.shtml . However, the texts are not searchable as they are image scans.

    Because the WikiSource item is not itself sourced, I would argue that this is not a reliable source.

    SUGGESTION — as this citation only appears in tandem with #19, drop #18 altogether unless the sourcing of the WikiSource material can be more firmly established.

    I removed the source as the New York Times source is adequate enough here. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

19. Available online

    will not pursue archived copies as there is do-not-reproduce footer text

    SUGGESTION — the publication date and date differ by one day for this news item, which should be indicated in the citation; also add location and format meta-data

    The paper itself was issued on 12/16 while the story was written on 12/15, as with most morning newspapers. I don't see a parameter in cite news for this. Otherwise, I have added additional information to the citation. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

20. Not available online

    There is insufficient information in the citation as this appears to be a paraphrase of the content coupled with a year.

    This citation also appears in the New Jersey Route 143

    SUGGESTION — remove, replace with traceable citation or improve citation to make it traceable (need not be online).

21. Not available online

    There is insufficient information in the citation as this appears to be a paraphrase of the content coupled with a year.

    SUGGESTION — remove, replace with traceable citation or improve citation to make it traceable (need not be online).

    I have removed the previous two references and the information supported by them as the information is more relevant to New Jersey Route 143. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

22. Not available online

    Insufficient information is provided for a reader to know what document is being referred to.

    SUGGESTION — remove, replace with traceable citation or improve citation to make it traceable (need not be online).

23. Not available online

    Insufficient information is provided for a reader to know what document is being referred to.

    SUGGESTION — remove, replace with traceable citation or improve citation to make it traceable (need not be online).

    The previous two map references are in my personal map collection. I could not find an ISBN or another identification number for the map. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

24. Not available online

    Insufficient information is provided for a reader to know what document is being referred to.

    A copy of this document appears to reside in the Temple University Library according to http://library.temple.edu/collections/urbana/pamad08.jsp and a critique of the document appears also to reside in the Temple University Library according to http://library.temple.edu/collections/urbana/pamti09.jsp?bhcp=1 . This is not a document which can be found via an ISBN.

    SUGGESTION — indicate (perhaps as a citation note) that a copy resides in the Temple University Library, or in another repository that the public can access.

    Added note. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

25. Available online

    The document link is a deadlink. The article now resides in the publisher's archives. An abstract / summary can be found at http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courierpostonline/access/1877541721.html?FMT=ABS&date=Oct+12,+2009 ; the full text requires payment for access.

    SUGGESTION — Update the citation to account for the change in location.

    Updated. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Breadth, Neutrality and Stability

These Good Article Criteria are satisfied.

Illustrations

Illustrations suitable to the topic are included. The number and size of illustrations add to rather than distract from the article.

Looking at the illustrations

In none of the illustrations is there any evidence that the identification is correct for any of the subjects except for the statements of the illustration authors. I've spoken to this below in the "veracity" bullets.

• File:US Route 30 (NJ) map.svg (on commons)
  • licensing under CCSA 3 and GNU by author of original graphic work
  • VERACITY - can be verified by consultation of other sources
  • SUGGESTION - Keep
• File:US 30 Admiral Wilson.JPG (on commons)
  • licensed under CCSA 1 and 3, CopyLeft and GNU, as well as released into the Public Domain, by author of original photographic work
  • I am a bit unclear on whether releasing into the Public Domain and licensing under the mentioned licenses are compatible or not.
  • VERACITY - can be verified by physically traversing the captioned location
  • SUGGESTION - Keep
• File:US Route 30 - New Jersey eastbound at US 206-NJ 54.jpg (on commons)
  • licensed under CCSA 2 by author of original photographic work
  • VERACITY - can be verified by physically traversing the captioned location
  • SUGGESTION - Keep
• File:NJ 43 (cutout).svg and File:NJ 56 (cutout).svg (on commons)
  • each released into the Public Domain by author of original graphic work (same author)
  • the author states that the source for the illustration is File:NY-x (cutout).svg; however, there is no connection between the two illustrations other than that they are shield illustrations. Therefore, the sourcing is either not accurate or not properly explained.
  • VERACITY - It may not be possible to verify that the shields are accurate given sources in the article. Ideally, the author of the shields should provide a citation where the shield is described or depicted.
  • SUGGESTION - Remove
    • From what I know, road signs in the United States are considered to be in the public domain. If you need more clarity on the veracity, I can ask the creators of the shield. Otherwise, the shields could be removed from the article. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I talked with the user who requested the shields and he gave a few sources. See User talk:Dough4872#Re; Old shields. ---Dough4872 18:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Moved to User talk:Dough4872/Archive 2009#Re; Old shields. ---Dough4872 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. ---Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the status of this review? Looks like nothing's happened in almost a month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the reviewer to reply back. ---Dough4872 18:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, his editing has been very sparse the past month (should've checked that first) so I'll ask for a second reviewer as it looks like you've fixed everything. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'll just do a second review. Give me a few hours. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I went through it and did not see anything aside from the earlier concerns, so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)