Talk:New Jersey Route 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeNew Jersey Route 26 was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 5, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey Route 26/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

More work is needed.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    "becoming part of an engineering feat meant for the safety of drivers" change to "being reconstructed to add a median for the safety of drivers" if that is true.
    Can you please rephrase this (from lead paragaraph) so that it is clear to the reader?
    "to Nassau Street at the to the border of New Brunswick" - words missing or extra words
    "the community of North Brunswick Township." - consider dropping "the Community of"
    "crossing southward of a pond to the north a car dealership." - change "southward" to "south" also words are missing.
    "North Oaks Boulevard, which connects Route 26 and Route 1 via a residential complex.[3]" should be "North Oaks Boulevard which runs through a residential area between Route 26 and Route 1."
    Doesn't make a difference either way.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 06:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It does. I think you mean that North Oaks Boulevard cuts through a residential complex. As worded you imply that the Boulevard is a part of a residential complex, perhaps its parking lot. I am not wedded to a particular wording, but what you have is not clear.
    "After a while, Route 26 intersects with 14th Street and Hermann Avenue at a traffic light. " should state a distance (a while is time), e.g., "After 0.3 miles..."
    WP:USRD/STDS violation. Will not change.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 06:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use a phrase other than "After a while" becaue of the confusion with temporal meaning. WP:USRD/STDS does not override GA criteria "the prose is clear and concise".
    There, fixed. Mileage is not happening, which is why I cited the STDS.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 19:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "sufficient funds were not raised and the plans eventually folded" should be "insufficient funds were raised and the project eventually folded"
    " 2000 stocks of the corporation" should be "2000 shares in the corporation"
    If the plans started in 1795. how can the map date back to 1777?
    Rutgers fault probably.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 06:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you know which date is correct, please make sure that the caption on the "plans" and the text are consistent regarding the date. This website says the map was drawn in the early 1800's.
    "By 1806, the turnpike was opened" probably should be "By 1806, a portion of the turnpike was opened"
    "The turnpike was heavily-used, using all transportation styles at the time" - what does this mean?
    "and the turnpike could not handle the expenses for stagecoaches." probably means "and the turnpike could not meet its expenses from just stagecoach toll revenues."
    "To add insult to injury, " - please reword
    "That December, the railroad company attempted to merge the turnpike company into theirs," should be "That December, the railroad company attempted to buy the turnpike,"
    " but the votes turned against their favor. " should be "but the legislature defeated the proposal." - I hope this archaic language was not copied from some source.
    From the history section of the revised article, "A further note was made that the railroad could acquire the old turnpike for railroad right-of-way to connect Philadelphia and New York. That December, the railroad company attempted to merge the turnpike company into theirs, but faced opposition." - needs to be rewritten, whether you adopt my suggested changes above or not.
    " which left the construction of a railroad to become a dead proposal," should be "which killed plans to construct the railroad"
    This phrase is still awkward in the revised article.
    "The only stagecoach line that remained went out of business after becoming the only stagecoach line along the turnpike, which cut funds at a large rate." should be "The only remaining stagecoach line went out of business, which suddenly reduced toll revenues."
    The revised article now reads, "The last stagecoach line left went out of business soon after becoming the only stagecoach line along the turnpike, which cut turnpike revenues drastically." Again, consider "The only remaining stagecoach line went out of business, which cut turnpike revenues drastically." - It does not matter that the time between the next to last stagecoach and the last stagecoach leaving the business was short. It does matter that stagecoach revenue dropped fast.
    "The railroad also took over jurisdiction of the turnpike." Do you mean took over operation of the turnpike? I thought that the state had jurisdiction.
    The railroad claimed jurisdiction, the state hadn't gotten it as.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 06:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between jurisdiction and ownership. I thought that the legislature step in and addressed rates and quality of service at various points in the turnpike's history. Hence, it had jurisdiction. The railroad at this point owned the turnpike company and the state's turnpike franchise. Please don't use the word "jurisdiction" because I don't think that is what you really mean.
    "as an alignment of State Highway Route 26." - didn't they just designate it as Route 26. Was there more than one alignment at that time?
    "Construction paced northward, " - what construction? Say that the state decided to resurface Route 26.
    "renumbering,a" - need space
    "over twelve feet from its current alignment." do you mean 12 feet from its prior alignment or 12 feet from its 2010 alignment?
    The revised text still does not answer the question, was the entire highway moved 12 feet or was a 12 median inserted as a result of the move?
    ", also making a safety island for a new median." - what does this mean? Were traffic in both directions moved over 12 feet, or was a 12 foot median merely added to the road?
    "7.70% of traffic were in accidents along Route 26 at the night contrary to 2.42% during the daytime" Is it "7.7% of night-time traffic on Route 26 were in accidents ..." - that is still a very high rate!
    Please address the above proposed change.
    Perhaps delink [[George Street (New Brunswick)|George Street]]
    Why are "Trenton and New Brunswick Turnpike" and "Middlesex County Route 691" in bold? Does it make sense for Middlesex County Route 691 to redirect to this article? Racepacket (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. [see section below]
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    #You have absolutely no idea what the hell you talking about, I provided the sources I used for the section. There's no limit to how many sources are used as long as the sources are provided.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 06:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First, decide if you are keeping the turnpike history in this article. You don't have to since it is also in the U.S. 1 article that covers more of the turnpike than does the present-day Route 26. Second, if you keep it, please footnote each factual assertion with as many footnotes as you want. I am not saying that you have too many footnotes, I am saying there are too few footnotes. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The same source is used for the entire paragraphs, therefore I don't need more than 1 per paragraph. And yes I am keeping them as is. 1 per paragraph when its the only source is all that is needed.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 19:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you keep the turnpike history in, you need more sources for the facts stated in the turnpike history.
    " was revert to the state for future usage, " the source said the turnpike was transferred to the individual townships. Which is correct?
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    It appears that Trenton and New Brunswick Turnpike has been merged into this article. I don't understand why, since the turnpike was much longer. This makes most of the history section discuss a road that was far different than the current Route 26. You might want to separate out the turnpike-related history into a separate article. The same history, with better editing also appears in the History section of U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey. What is your intended scope of coverage?
    NJ 26 was once a very long state highway stretching from Trenton to New Brunswick, using most of the turnpikes and was concurrent with 1. Most people recognized it then as NJ 26 anyway. (Its been NJ 26 since 1927).Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 06:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any pending or proposed construction plans relevant to Route 26? Bridge replacements? Impact of high speed rail initiatives under the Obama administration?
    High speed-rail funded by Scamtrak doesn't affect NJ 26 at all. 91 parallels the tracks at a distance, same for 26. There amazingly is no bridges at all on the current Route 26, don't ask me how.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 06:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is good news for commuters. Typically a EIS for a federal project will identify haul routes. I had assumed, incorrectly, that they would use Route 26 as a haul route for the track upgrades, but I am pleased that I am wrong. Racepacket (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At one point, the article covered the state takeover from the townships of the turnpike, but that has been dropped from the history. I think that the history should explain when the road was coverted from gravel to hardtop and the fact that it was maintained by the townships until 1926.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I am placing this article on hold. Racepacket (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the rest of the copyediting, you've seen my opinion on the rest.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 06:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replies added.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 19:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) We still have some differences, please see my notes above regarding remaining unclear prose. We also differ on the sourcing of the history. As I understand your position every single fact in both of the history paragraphs came from the Plainsboro Historical Society. We had both better recheck this. You have obviously put a lot of work into this article, and I think that we are very close. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History section sourcing concerns[edit]

I think that the article would be better using two or more sources instead of paraphrasing one source and then distorting the facts when paraphrasing. For example, you could go back to the legislative archives regarding the enactments discussed in the section. Alternatively, you have the option of dropping the Turnpike history from this article because it is in the U.S. 1 article. Perhaps this prose which was added on November 20, 2009, has not been adequately vetted by other editors.

  • "Although officials in cities like New Brunswick were supportive of the plan," - source only mentions "New Brunswick interests," - need additional sources re: officials and other cities.
  • "with the New Jersey State Legislature chartered the Trenton and New Brunswick Turnpike," - source does not say when the Legislature chartered the turnpike.
  • "The new charter set a term of 99 years for the corporation." but the source says the franchise had a term of 99 years.
  • " On November 28, 1806, a second charter was passed in the legislature to grant fines of $20" - the source says it was an supplement (i.e., an amendment) not a second charter. This difference affects the franchise term, existing debts, etc.
  • "would often have a hard time counting the amount of horses at a tollgate because of kicked up smoke and dust. " but the source said, " Sometimes the toll collector was confronted with a problem when droves of livestock raised clouds of dust and blocked the way as he tried to count their numbers." Do you have another source for horses rather than herds of livestock?
  • "During the War of 1812, the turnpike gained record usage, moving goods between Philadelphia and New York." The source says "During the War of 1812, the British blockade of ports along the Atlantic Coast made it necessary to move goods overland. Between Philadelphia and New York, thousands of wagons drawn by teams of horses and oxen formed a near continuous stream hauling goods previously transported by coastwise vessels. Freight rates and commodity prices soared. This would be the heyday of the turnpike. There was a record use during the war."
  • "A third supplement was added to the charter in January 1814, where the turnpike corporation would have to upgrade the road in eighteen months or face removal of tolls." - what was the second supplement? The source said both upgrade the road and keep it in good repair. The table at page 17 of The history of New Jersey: from its discovery by Europeans, to the adoption ... By Thomas Francis Gordon only lists two supplements.
  • "Although the corporation upgraded the route in 1827, the road was still very tough to travel for passengers and people hauling expensive goods." The source says, "During 1827 the turnpike company improved and upgraded the road, but the 25 miles was still a tedious journey for passengers and expensive for hauling freight by wagon." So you moved "expensive" from describing the freight hauling cost to the type of goods. Do you have a source that the goods were expensive?
  • "the profits began to dwindle and the turnpike could not handle the expenses for stagecoaches" The source talks about covering turnpike expenses not stagecoach expenses. You should really change this sentence as noted above, but if you want to keep it, you need a different source.
  • "A further note was made that the railroad could acquire..." source is discussing the legislation. Need to rephrase.
  • "In 1834, the turnpike company requested the choice to put another railroad on their turnpike right-of-way, but the monopoly from the Delaware and Raritan Canal and Camden and Amboy Railroad immediately opposed." - Source discusses the proposal for new legislation, article does not. "the monopoly from" is not the right wording. You mean that "the Delaware and Raian Canal RR opposed the requested legislation to protect its monopoly."
  • "That year however, there were some upgrades made to the road, but not by much." Source said that they re-graveled the road.
  • Source said it went to the townships not the state.

Racepacket (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has indicated that he no longer wishes to pursue this nomination, so it is failed. Racepacket (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Jersey Route 26. 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) 03:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Jersey_Route_26&oldid=1207102243"