Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/New Jersey Route 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not promote; several unresolved issues. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Route 31[edit]

New Jersey Route 31 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
Nominator's comments: Originally a Good Article written by Dough4872, I have taken this article and given it some major work, mainly in how the highway was constructed and the use of references in the article. I hope at this point, it is suitable for A-class.
Nominated by: Mitch/HC32 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 03:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Review by TMF
  • The bolded text at the article's outset violates WP:USSH for New Jersey.
Done.
  • "Much of Route 31 is a two-lane country road running through farmland, woodland, and mountainous areas, except for the portion of the route north from Trenton to Pennington, six miles (10 km) in Hunterdon County, where it is concurrent with U.S. Route 202, and between Flemington and Clinton" - the sentence begins by talking about the route's surroundings, then it jumps into concurrent routes and various segments along the highway. What kinds of areas does the route pass through from Trenton to Pennington, et al? The text implies that they're not rural areas, but it doesn't say what exactly they are.
Done.
  • "The alignment of the highway was constructed from 1926 to 1935 along its entire alignment to Buttzville from Trenton." - incredibly awkward wording.
Done.
  • I skipped ahead after reading that sentence and I must say that the entire article needs a good copyedit. Once this is done, I'll give this another, more detailed review. – TMF 03:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will try, getting me a copyeditor, or doing it myself is not easy.Mitch/HC32 16:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has a copyeditor been contacted? It's been two weeks. – TMF 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, if no copyeditor is being sought, then per the review instructions this should be closed as a stale nom. – TMF 19:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dave

If a copyeditor is on the way, I'll wait until cleaned up before doing a detailed review. However I've got a couple of points.

  • IMO if a way can be elegantly found to move the historical marker image to be the lead image, IMO that's a much better photo than one with visible windshield tinting in 1/3rd the photo. However, this will take some work to have it fit in that way.
  • Image cropped to remove tinting and other stuff. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also need to unbold the stuff outside the lead.Dave (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will copyedit the article as I was a major contributor. Dough4872 (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through and copyedited the article, fixing wordings and removing many needless county route intersections. However, I have two concerns with the Construction section. First, what is "when a long time set of legislative enactments" supposed to mean? Second, the first paragraph of this section seems to describe the construction of the route while the second paragraph describes bridge information and more redundant construction information that seems to contradict what was said in the first paragraph. Can this section be rewritten to make it sound more clear? Dough4872 (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true (as per the end) - It is not redundant- read it carefully.Mitch/HC32 22:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished the copyedit. Any additional comments for improvement are welcome. Dough4872 (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second review by TMF
  • Sorry to be blunt, but the lead is still a mess. "The excepttions to this are the portion of the route north from Trenton, a highly developed city to Pennington, one of the capital's suburbs, six miles (10 km) within Hunterdon County, where it is concurrent with U.S. Route 202, and between Flemington and Clinton, where the highway is mainly commercial." - long, winded run-on. "The highway was constructed from 1926 to 1935, running between Buttzville and Trenton." - awkward wording. "There were plans made in the late 1960s and early 1970s to build a freeway that would serve the Route 31 corridor from the Trenton area to northwestern New Jersey as far north as Interstate 84 in Port Jervis, New York;" - the part after northwestern New Jersey seems like a poorly-worded tack-on point. It could be used, however, by reworking the sentence entirely ("build a freeway in the Route 31 corridor that would begin in the Trenton area and extend as far north as Interstate 84 in Port Jervis, New York" - something like that.). The only items I thought were completely fine in the lead were those in the beginning of the second paragraph talking about the change in designations. Other than that, it was disheartening to see the lead still in poor shape, which is what prompted me to call off my initial review.
    • The lead is better; however, there's still some awkward/confusing phrasing. Among them: the opening sentence tries to squeeze in a description of the entire route; however, that type of detail should be reserved for the sentences that follow. I'd move the "...with two exceptions" to the start of the next sentence, which would then begin "Two exceptions to this exist..." or something like that. Also: "north from Trenton to the suburb of Pennington is predominantly built-up while the portion between Ringoes and Clinton, including the concurrency with U.S. Route 202, is mainly commercial." - wouldn't it be sufficient to just say that both areas are built-up? "The highway was constructed from 1926 to 1935 between Buttzville and Trenton." - since the termini listed here are the same as the modern route, I question the necessity of their inclusion here. "In recent years, Route 31 saw extensive construction projects between Flemington and Clinton that widened the road to four lanes." - routes have eyes? "In addition, a failed project was proposed to build a bypass of Flemington that would have also eliminated the Flemington Circle." - using both "failed" and "proposed" in the same sentence seems awkward to me.
      • I broke the first sentence in the lead into three sentences. I rewrote the last sentence oin the lead. I removed the "between Buttzville and Trenton" as it is redundant. The sentence ""In recent years, Route 31 saw extensive construction projects between Flemington and Clinton that widened the road to four lanes." has been reworded to aviod use of "saw". I reworded the last sentence of the lead to avoid contradiction. Dough4872 (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's getting there. There are still some awkward sentences: "There are two exceptions with the portion of the route north from Trenton to the suburb of Pennington and between Ringoes and Clinton, including the concurrency with U.S. Route 202, built-up." - built-up seems like a tack-on point. "In recent years, there have been extensive construction projects along Route 31 between Flemington and Clinton that widened the road to four lanes." - could just say that that portion of the route has been widened to four lanes in recent years. – TMF 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed. Dough4872 (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Made a couple other copyedits. The lead's prose seems to flow pretty well now. – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: "The route passes by residences and crosses County Route 653 (Calhoun Street) and then enters Ewing Township where it crosses County Route 634 (Parkway Avenue)." - slight run-on. However, that was the only glaring thing that jumped out at me in terms of flow. Now, I must say, having re-read the B-W Parkway description right before reading this one, this description does not have as much "life" as the other one. I think if I had to assess this article's description, I would say that the second half (from about the second paragraph of Huntington County on) was better than the first in terms of a true description of the route - scenery, sights, surroundings, etc.
    • Again, better, but still has issues. The first paragraph of the Mercer County subsection suffers from a series of short sentences that doesn't really establish a flow. In terms of the RD as a whole, I see a clear overuse of "the route"; in fact, I think I saw "the route" more times than I saw "Route 31". Also, there are some areas of the RD, specifically toward the middle, where it reads like a list of communities along the route.
      • I have made some tweaks to the first paragraph of the RD to allow for better flow. I have replaced some of the instances of "the route" in the route description. I don't see how parts of the RD read like a list of communities as major intersections and physical features are presented throughout. Dough4872 (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • One section I can see: "The route crosses into Lebanon Township, where it heads northwest across the Musconetcong Mountains. It enters Glen Gardner where the route crosses Spruce Run.[1][2] Route 31 heads through Glen Gardner before heading into Hampton, where it heads west through that community as a three-lane road with two southbound lanes and one northbound lane." - the whole thing basically follows a format of naming a location then mentioning an item in the area. In this instance, if it doesn't cross anything notable in Glen Gardner, I'd simply say the route passes through it and wouldn't devote parts of two sentences to it. – TMF 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I merged the information abourt Glen Gardner and Hampton into one sentence. Dough4872 (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • RD issues seem to be resolved. – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History: "The origins of State Route 31 date back to the years of 1909–1917, when a long time set of legislative enactments, the New Jersey State Legislature formed the New Jersey State Highway Department." - I'm not really sure what this sentence is trying to say. What's a "a long time set"?
    • "The origins of State Route 31 date back to 1909–1917, when a long set of legislative enactments, including the formation of the New Jersey State Highway Department," - this makes no sense. What does this have to do with Route 31? And why "State Route 31"?
      • Redone.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still don't see how it explicitly relates to Route 31. Did New Jersey establish a state highway system as part of the creation of the state highway department? If so, was what became Route 31 among the roads included in said system? If it wasn't, it really isn't worth mentioning in an article on Route 31. – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1923–1933, the state enacted the "Good Roads" Act, which greatly expanded the state highway system in New Jersey." - was it a set of legislation that was passed over a span of 10 years or did it take 10 years to carry out the construction specified in an act passed in 1923? I assume it's the latter, but if so it's a weird way of putting it.
    • "and from 1923–1933, the state enacted the "Good Roads" Act, which greatly expanded the state highway system in New Jersey" - weird way of phrasing this. I'd go with something like "In 1923, the state of New Jersey passed the Good Roads Act, which..." and then explain how it was enacted over the next decade.
      • Fixed.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "In 1923, the state of New Jersey passed the Good Roads Act, which greatly expanded the state highway system in New Jersey." - so basically it's the same thing as above with a couple of words stripped out. It's still way too vague. How did it expand the system? Did the state take over pre-existing highways? Did the state construct new highways? It's not at all clear. – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The highway from Trenton to Buttzville began construction in 1926" - it built itself?
    • "Construction began from Trenton to Buttzville in 1926 with the southern terminus in Trenton" - did construction on the entire route begin in 1926? If not, this sentence is highly misleading.
      • Still an issue. – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A total of 11 bridges were constructed along the highway during this time." - I don't see the significance of this.
    • "During 1930, the construction had reached Clinton,[7] Glen Gardener,[8] and Washington,[9] where the route currently runs" - why was "where the route currently runs" added here?
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The route's construction progressed northward, with the nine sections of highway reaching Hunterdon County" - I'm not sure of the meaning of "nine sections" here. Was the route composed of simultaneously constructed pieces?
    • This is still an issue. I seem to understand what the sections are now, but did New Jersey number them as they were built? If not, why are we?
      • The citation seems to have numbered them :| - Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still don't see the need to number them if the sections were completed in order from south to north. – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "The route's construction progressed northward, with the sections of highway reaching Hunterdon County, where the highway was constructed between April and October 1931." - long winded and fragment-filled sentence. Needs copyediting. – TMF 21:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The entire alignment was finished at this time, while proposed bypasses for the highway around the communities of Clinton and Pennington were defferred and not constructed. There were also pieces of highway that were constructed and the whole roadway was opened in the year of 1935." - the "also pieces of highway" part is vague. What pieces were these? It's not clear at all, especially when the sentence before it says the alignment was completed and construction of the proposed bypasses were deferred until later. Also, if the entire highway was completed in 1932, why wasn't it opened for another three years?
    • Somewhat resolved. "The part of Route 31 north of the Musconetcong River was constructed from October 1931 north to Buttzville in 1932." - awkward phrasing. Also: "The entire alignment was finished at this time, while proposed bypasses for the highway around the communities of Clinton and Pennington were defferred and not constructed. There were also pieces of highway that were constructed during 1934 and the whole roadway was opened in the year of 1935." - if pieces of Route 31 were not built until 1934, then you can't say that "The entire alignment was finished [in 1932]."
      • Fixed.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The logic makes sense now, but the last four sentences of the paragraph ("The part of Route 31 north of the Musconetcong..." onward) needs copyediting. – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it very odd that the first paragraph of the construction section wraps up with the completion of the route and the second paragraph jumps back a good 10 years and discusses the highway's construction again. The first and second paragraphs should definitely be consolidated and rewritten - not necessarily in one paragraph, though - to produce a more linear history. I see this issue was discussed to some extent above; however, I don't think it was approached from this perspective. I don't think it's necessarily redundant as much as it is disorganized.
    • While this itself is resolved, now the construction section is one blob of text. It needs to be broken into two paragraphs somewhere.
      • It don't look right.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No longer an issue due to the presence of other pre-construction paragraphs. – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Route 31 was defined in the 1927 New Jersey state highway renumbering as State Highway Route 30" - any reason for the "State Highway Route" bit? I understand that's what's on the historical marker in the article, but was the system in place in 1927 a totally different system from today (a la the pre-1924 New York legislative routes) or was it today's modern New Jersey route system (in terms of lineage)? If it's the latter, I suggest using just "Route" to comply with WP:USSH.
  • "In 1927, a Route 31 was also defined, running from Princeton to the New York state line.[10][11] This became part of U.S. Route 206 between Princeton and Newton and Route 94 between Newton and the New York state line in the 1953 New Jersey state highway renumbering.[12] The section of U.S. Route 206 between Newton and the Delaware River was designated Route S31, a spur of Route 31, in 1927; this designation was also dropped in the 1953 renumbering.[10][12]" - does this have any relation to modern Route 31 (it's not clear)? If not, I'd drop it - otherwise, the hatnote at the top of the article - This article is about the current New Jersey Route 31. For the former Route 31, see New Jersey Route 31 (1927-1953). - wouldn't be true since the article wouldn't be exclusively discussing current Route 31.
  • I'd split the second paragraph of the Designation section into at least two paragraphs. Right now, it's just a big clump of text.
  • Is it necessary to have all four street names at the southern terminus of Route 31 in the junction list? To me, the only thing it does is bloat the table width-wise. Also, I don't see a need for the "Southern/northern terminus" notations; unlike something along the lines of the ACE Connector, the termini of this route are straightforward.
  • Source 12 consists only of the text "1953 renumbering". To me, that's not adequate sourcing for an article that is to be A-Class, and I would've raised the issue for GA had I been the reviewer. This needs to be replaced with an actual source, even if it's a link to the renumbering text on Wikisource. (I think that's where it is, or maybe that's California. Maybe both.)
  • Images: Not really an A-Class issue, but it looks like at least two images (File:NJ 31 southbound in Clinton.jpg and File:The final stretch of NJ 31 in Buttzville.jpg) haven't been color corrected, which makes them look overly greenish and bland. The other two pictures may have the same issue, but if they do I can't tell from a cursory glance.
  • I'd convert the newspaper sources to use {{cite news}}.
    • This was not done.
      • Fixed.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it wasn't; ref 28 doesn't use cite news or if it does it doesn't use it correctly. It may not be the only offending ref either. – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has no non-breaking spaces.
    • There are still some instances that need some.
      • Fixed.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not from what I can tell. I see half a dozen instances of missing non-breaking spaces in just the lead. – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still an issue. – TMF 21:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • There are still many instances of missing non-breaking spaces in the route description. There are also some cases where the non-breaking space has been applied incorrectly (for example, it should be between "Route 1" in "U.S. Route 1 Business" and not between "1 and Business"). – TMF 20:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any pre-1900 history regarding this route, such as old indian trails, turnpikes, or plank roads that predated the construction of Route 31? Or was Route 31 a totally new facility?
    • Fixed.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The turnpike served as a good connector" - POV?
      • "It also served as an important for the Jersey and Castenoga wagons from both communities." - POV? also missing a word somewhere
      • "In 1916, a portion of the highway, along NJ 31 in Hampton was taken over by the state and was repaired to state standards for $300 (1916 USD)." - really should be mentioned farther down in the history section where it discusses the establishment of the NJ state highway system. Another reason for moving it down is that the next paragraph jumps back to the 1800s. Going back and forth in time is jarring to readers. I highly suggest that someone copyedit this recent addition. I'm not going to do it since I've already indicated my position on this article and it shouldn't have to be the reviewer's responsibility to perform the copyediting - just point out the issues that exist. – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Initial issue resolved. – TMF 21:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New issues:

  • "An extension north to Interstate 80 in Hope Township and south to Interstate 195 was proposed at the end of the 1960s and further northward extension to Interstate 84 and the planned Route 23 freeway near Port Jervis, New York was called for in the early 1970s, costing $80 million." - I'd split this into two sentences - one about the original extension plan and another for the Port Jervis one.
    • Done, but the resulting two sentences need copyediting. – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This proposed freeway faced opposition from residents along the corridor as well as environmental and financial troubles that caused it to be canceled in the mid-1970s." - slightly awkward wording.
    • This sentence really wasn't changed at all. It's still poorly worded. – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the completion of the New Jersey portion of Interstate 287 in 1993, Route 31 saw an increase of out-of-state truck drivers following the route as part of a toll-free north-south alternate to the New Jersey Turnpike." - "saw" again. Also, awkward wording is present throughout the second half of the sentence.
    • Still an issue re "saw".
      • The sentence still unnecessarily treats the highway as a living object (with the word "experienced"), so it's still an issue. – TMF 21:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On July 16, 1999, a ban on oversize trucks was imposed on New Jersey roads not a part of the National Highway System by then-governor Christine Todd Whitman, including Route 31, that had a significant effect on trucks following this route, forcing them to use Interstate 287 and the New Jersey Turnpike" - run-on.
    • Done, but the resulting two sentences need copyediting. – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 2000s, Route 31 saw extensive construction projects between Flemington and Clinton that widened the road to four lanes." - "saw" again.
    • "In the 2000s, Route 31 had extensive construction projects completed between Flemington and Clinton that widened the road to four lanes." - the road commissioned the changes? – TMF 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again with "received" - still an issue. – TMF 21:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it still treats the highway as a living object. I don't see why that sentence couldn't be shortened to just "In the 2000s, the portion of Route 31 between Flemington and Clinton was widened from two (presumably?) to four lanes." – TMF 20:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There, used yours.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 21:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done with all these.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I was a bit over the top and maybe a bit too blunt with this review, but I was somewhat disappointed with the state of the article. It's pretty raw for something that's at ACR. – TMF 08:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything done. I did find two turnpikes (NJ wasn't great on them), and will add them soon. I have asked Dough to deal with the lead and Route description.Mitch/HC32 14:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the suggested fixes to the lead and route description as well as added an additional reference for the 1953 renumbering. Dough4872 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied above. – TMF 05:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If all issues are not addressed by Sunday night (Eastern time) I will oppose this nomination. I've given this nomination more than enough rope to succeed, certainly more than FAC or even GAN would (as was pointed out to me last night). At some point, we at ACR simply have to move on. – TMF 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed my share of the issues, the rest is up to Mitch. Dough4872 (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, some issues, primarily dealing with the history, have not been resolved. Additionally, if there were turnpikes that predated NJ 31 - as was indicated above - then they need to be included for this article to be considered complete and comprehensive, which is a FA/A-Class criteria. – TMF 23:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status of this nomination? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposer will not reply.01:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Uh, I did above where applicable... Since not all of my issues have been resolved, my oppose still stands. – TMF 06:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied and struck resolved issues where applicable. I am, however, becoming extremely frustrated with this review - I keep pointing out issues with the article and when I return at the request of others to see if they've been resolved, they typically haven't been. It's to the point where I come back to this review expecting to find items in the article that haven't been changed from the last time I saw it. Honestly, unless every issue on this page is fully resolved soon, I believe it'd be best to bring this ACR to an end. If this was any other venue on Wikipedia and issues brought up in a review were consistently not resolved, the nomination would be failed by this point. – TMF 21:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: ref 31 has the wrong work listed. The work was originally published in the Courier News, as stated in the document; docstoc is simply the web host of it. The author and published date needs to be added to the reference as well. – TMF 21:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Wikilink Courier News in the ref. 2) The author and published date were not added. – TMF 20:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done for sure.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 21:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did everything, just because I didn't post everything as done on this page doesn't mean I haven't done them.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 10:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I checked the article itself and many issues that I have brought up have not been resolved. – TMF 18:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALT compliance
  • This article currently does not comply with WP:ALT; note the section on WT:USRD if you have any questions. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I request someone do it for me? I only can do it with regular images.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 01:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The shield has already been done for you. Use map_alt= in the infobox. Use alt= at the end of each image. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done with everything above except the copyediting part. I am going to ask JC if he can copyedit.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 15:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns with the alt text in the images. They should not be a repetition of the caption of the image. Instead, they need to describe what is visually seen in the image. See New Jersey Route 208 for an example of how this is used. Dough4872 (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns addressed on IRC. Dough4872 (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still some alt text issues with this article as seen from this alt text checker. The 25x20px shields in the infobox are still linked (and thus have no alt text) and the text provided for the map ("Map of NJ 31") essentially repeats the caption and does nothing to actually describe the map itself. The other pictures have similar issues: for example, the alt text on the picture with the I-78/US 22 assembly is currently "Signage along a two-lane highway depicting the upcoming Interstate". I don't pretend to be a total expert on how to apply WP:ALT in practice, but it's likely that the signage in the photo needs to be described as well to comply with the standard for alt text. – TMF 21:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the shields and worked on the map, but I think someone else will have to do the images, after trying again and again and pretty much failing. Probably better that way.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the alt text. Dough4872 (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

A few things I'd like cleared up before I continue copyediting:

  • The turnpike was chartered by the New Jersey State Assembly on February 6, 1813 and was to be maintained and tolled by the Spruce Run Turnpike Company. - Was "to be"? Did that happen in actuality, or was it simply planned?
Fixed.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 15:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also served as a high-use route for the Jersey and Castenoga wagons from both communities. - I'm not sure what this means.
Fixed.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 15:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The route from Trenton to Pennington was part of the Pennington Turnpike, another privately maintained pre-date highway. - "Pre-date"?
Fixed.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 15:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The turnpike was to cost one cent for every carriage or sled pulled by horses or mules - Same issue as above.
Fixed.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 15:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton | Talk 15:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Repairs were done to the road by October 31st, 1899. - The source is from 1898... –Juliancolton | Talk 16:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partially fixed.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If serious efforts are not made to resolve all the issues on this page by the end of Wednesday 9/16 I will be failing this nomination. This has had way too much time with no supports, and there are concerns with the nominator not addressing the concerns to the reviewer's satisfaction consistently. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From reading the review above it looks like you've been given more than enough time to make the changes needed. If you've been saying that things have been fixed when they aren't, then I have no sympathy for you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's now Thursday 9/17 and there are still many open issues. I suggest that this be closed. – TMF 19:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the time to fully close it out; I'll just archive the discussion. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have, once again, commented and struck resolved issues (there, once again, weren't many) above. Somewhere along the way, the history devolved into four ugly, excessively long paragraphs (along with one that's of palatable length). As long as the history has this issue (which ultimately causes readers to say "too long, didn't read"), it is impossible for me to call this one of USRD's best articles, which is what the ACR "stamp of approval" should signify. – TMF 20:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/New_Jersey_Route_31&oldid=1140162783"