Jump to content

Talk:New Jersey Route 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNew Jersey Route 18 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 3, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 28, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 18, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 19, 2008WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
May 21, 2013Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

{{fact}}

[edit]

what the heck are you talking about????

look at a map for yourself!!!!

Route 18 for several miles runs east-west... it is because it was intended to be two highways instead of one whole...

LOOK AT A MAP!!! THE HIGHWAY RUNS FROM LEFT TO RIGHT FROM MILE 20 TO MILE 14!!!

STOP ADDING THE STUPID CITATION THING... SHEESH Route 82 20:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI has now corrected the placement of the tag, which was apparently not meant to doubt that tidbit so much as two surrounding ones. Is there a reason you believe those two pieces of information don't need citations? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't need citations, looking at any map will show you the S-curve of Route 18. and researching any page will tell you that the southern portion of Route 18 was intended to be Route 35. So the highway was intended to be two seperate ones.... Route 82 08:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't mean the S-curve and indirect nature is because that was to be Route 35 - there's a huge naval weapons station in the way of a direct road! --SPUI (T - C) 16:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Researching any page will tell you that the southern portion of Route 18 was intended to be Route 35? Then it should be easy to get a reliable source and cite it correctly, and there's no reason for you to be quibbling about it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UGH!!! visit Steve Anderson's site... it explains in there as well has a link to a map... From US Route 9 in Marlboro to the Parkway at Exit 105 was meant to be Route 18... most likely E-W. and from Route 38 (138) to north of the Parkway at Exit 105 was meant to be a *new* Route 35. When that was canceled, the NJDOT combined the already built Route 35 and absorbed it into the current day Route 18. Route 18 itself was never meant to travel down to Wall Township AT ALL! that is what I am meaning by the highway has an unusual S-curve... read it for yourself and take the nuetrality thing off already... and the citations. Route 82 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on Wikipedia that isn't obviously true needs to be cited. Since SPUI is disputing this, ipso facto it is not obviously true. Please stop trying to ignore Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you would like to make a wiki where you can express your point of view without having to provide citations, the MediaWiki software is easily downloadable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I KNEW U WERE GOING TO CHANGE IT!!! Don't change it back, it's fine the way it is, it was like that for months until you had to complain. Route 82 21:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything can be improved. Precedent is no reason to keep anything. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor junctions

[edit]

SPUI, stop editing "minor junctions" out of pages. If you think they're minor, discuss them first. US 1 is unequivocably a major junction on NJ 18. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.139.7.179 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not SPUI removing them without discussing them first. The issue is Special:Contributions/24.228.70.72 and User:Nextbarker adding them without discussing them first. These users have a history of adding non-major junctions on several highway pages (see this edit, and it has become common (although perhaps misguided in a few cases) practice to simply revert these edits.
While SPUI was incorrect to remove US 1 from the list, it has since been added back, and he was correct to remove the several other junctions from the list. -- NORTH talk 22:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Barker

[edit]

Would Route 36 be considered major at Route 18 with Monmouth Mall and the Racetrack on that road?

Would Route 27 be considered major at Route 18 by New Brunswick, with the Train Station?

--Nextbarker 16:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

Route 36 is reluctantly included because of the reasons you mentioned, and because it's the main through route to Long Branch and the shore. (Reluctantly because of its proximity to the GSP junction.)
I would refrain from adding Route 27 because it's superfluous to other New Brunswick area junctions. -- NORTH talk 23:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Route 36 is the only way to get to Sandy Hook, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.228.70.72 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but I doubt anyone travelling from Route 18 to Sandy Hook would get off at exit 13 and follow 36 all the way. -- NORTH talk 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would County Route 535 be considered major at NJ 18 or not enough traffic, since it's a county route on a major NJ road.

Nextbarker 03:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC) nextbarker[reply]

Route 18 wouldn't be considered major at Route 34, 79, 520, or 537, would it?

Nextbarker 06:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC) nextbarker[reply]

Since south of US Route 9 it'd be a freeway.

Nextbarker 00:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC) nextbarker[reply]

I'm a little confused, you may want to be a little clearer with how you word your questions. Because Route 18 is a freeway, that's a good reason to include it in the infoboxes on the other routes you mentioned. However, not every exit on the freeway belongs in the infobox for Route 18. -- NORTH talk 00:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me put it another way, between US Route 9 and the and NJ 138/I-195, would anymore shields be applicable in the minor junctions, or would that be too many shields to add? Especially south of the GSP, since NJ Route 18 was supposed to be at another area.

Nextbarker 03:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

NJ 18

[edit]

Does the question still confused you, NORTH?

Nextbarker 03:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

Route 18 freeway

[edit]

Try this, because Route 18 is a freeway south of US 9, would anymore shields be applicable?

Nextbarker 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

I think that since there are relatively few junctions listed at the moment, a couple more would be okay. Probably either NJ 79 or CR 537 and NJ 33. -- NORTH talk 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have second thoughts of adding Route 520, since when you get off Route 18, is don't go onto Route 520 directly. And can you add a CR 537 shield I'm having trouble

Nextbarker 05:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

If I recall correctly, in several directions it is a direct connection between NJ 18 and CR 520. Regardless though, county routes should not be listed in this infobox. (Only one of the roads into Freehold -- either 79 or 537 -- is necessary.) -- NORTH talk 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please be careful when adding junctions. Both the locations you added (for NJ 79 and NJ 33) were incorrect. -- NORTH talk 17:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought NJ 33 & NJ 18 intersect in Tinton Falls, is it Neptune?

I thought there was a entering boro of Tinton Falls sign on NJ 33?

The interchange between the GSP and NJ 33 is in Tinton Falls just west of the boundary. The interchange between NJ 33 and NJ 18 is about 2 miles east of the boundary in Neptune. -- NORTH talk 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thankx for the confusion.

24.228.70.72 02:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

What's going on on Route 18 in New Brunswick, there making a local/express lanes I read?

As i live in Highland Park, the town after New Brunswick, and i use 18 often. I really doubt they will. They are widening the road, creating a new "New Street" Bridge (already completed and opened), getting rid of the Commerce street exit, making a new Burnett Street Exit and making a new overpass for Paulus Street.Mitchazenia(7500+edits) 00:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds weird to make Route 18 a L/E lanes because you got apartment on Paulus Blvd, but on the other hand, it might be easy, traffic is a nightmare on Route 18 at Route 1 even on the NJTP Route 18 getting into US 1 can be jammed.

Nextbarker 01:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

Question, do you live in this area? cause-you seem to know a lot. Yes, the Garden Apartments.Mitchazenia(7500+edits) 03:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't I'm just reading the Routwe 18 page and it says there making a Local and express lane from Route 1-Route 27, so I'm just wondering.

Route 18 in New Brunswick

[edit]

But it's not true about Route 18 in New Brunswick, is it?

Nextbarker 05:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

How could Route 18 be considered major at Route 9 in Old Bridge, there's only one direction Route 18 North has entrance to Route 9 North as does the other way. Unless you take County Route 520 or Spring Valley Road.

Nextbarker 04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

You've been told many times that completeness of an interchange doesn't matter all that much. It's an essential junction for the area, as well as the last exit of the freeway section of NJ 18. Also, as I said in the message I left on your talk page which you've clearly chosen to ignore, routes that are higher than the article route (US 9 is higher than NJ 18) should always be included.
In other words, of course US 9 is major at NJ 18. -- NORTH talk 05:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

[edit]

I've put this article on hold for the following reasons:

  • There is a specific template for regular at-grade intersections; see WP:USRD for usage instructions.
  • Citations need to be added to the route description, as it can be challenged at any time.
  • The lead may be a bit short.
  • This article is not stable at all.

Please fix all of those concerns, and if they are fixed and looked at by me or another GA reviewer, it could be passed. Not a guarantee, though. (→zelzany - new age roads) 19:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]

Considering that all of the concerns have been met, plus some improvements, I've passed this article. (→zelzany - new age roads) 20:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Route 18 exit 15B

[edit]

Exit 15B on Route 18 goes to Route 38? in Tinton Falls?

--24.228.70.72 03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

I dunno where that comes from, as there is no route 38 in my town... I'm going delete it. --Darkdan 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

That would be County Road 38, which is also know as Wayside road. Some supporting evidance... [1]

DCwom 12:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My error, I'll go fix that correctly.Mi tch 13:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was a typo -- I know (or at least I think) CR 38 is in that area as well, but I assumed that was supposed to be NJ 36. Why aren't NJ 36 and the Garden State Parkway listed anywhere? -- 216.231.34.115 19:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your answer:

Southbound
15B - Wayside Road (CR 38) south
15A - Wayside Road (CR 38) north, Garden State Parkway south
13B - NJ 36 east, Eatontown, Long Branch
13A - Hope Road (CR 51)
Northbound
13A - CR 547 to Garden State Parkway, Wayside
13B - NJ 36 east
15A - Wayside Road north
no Exit 15B

There's at least a couple of other mistakes too. Exit 22 is for CR 537, not CR 522 (which ends in Freehold). Also, Exit 12 is missing. -- 216.231.34.115 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted Good Article

[edit]

Passing this article as a Good Article was definitely premature. It is on its way, but is not currently a GA. There are numerous factual errors, both in the exit list as mentioned above, and possibly a few minor issues in the prose. The punctuation in several places (particularly the exit list) is horrendous. The spacing and usage of the semicolons is inconsistent -- and does not match usage in any other exit lists, or the exit list guide. Some sentences in the prose need work ("...afterwards, 18 continues as road." does not make sense. Was that supposed to be "surface street"?), but this is a minor problem. The major problem is the factual inaccuracies and the lack of maintenance. If an obvious inaccuracy was pointed out on June 11, there's no excuse for it to be ignored for 11 days before it's "fixed".

If you disagree with my delisting, or fix the issues with the article, please take it to Wikipedia:Good article review so it can be passed by consensus, rather than streamlined by a WP:USRD member. -- NORTH talk 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Route 18 at Route 27

[edit]

Would Route 18 be considered major at Route 27?

--24.228.70.72 20:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

Suggestions for GA

[edit]

This is not a review but a suggestion, the last table is messed up and needs to be fixed. T Rex | talk 20:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying that, all fixed. :) Mitch32contribs 21:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is enormous. That's with a 5-second look at the article. There's no way this will pass. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the major freeways box you're missing Route 36 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.70.72 (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Route 18 major freeway box

[edit]

You're missing a Route 36 in the major infobox Route 9 and south box.

--24.228.70.72 03:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesex County Route 700

[edit]

Where along Route 18 is Middlesex County Route 700?

--24.228.70.72 02:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

Successful good article nomination

[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 18, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

This is a very thorough article and, after discussion with the nominator on IRC; I'm passing this as a good article, however my decision has not be biased throughout this, despite my discussions with the nominator on its improvement. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Qst 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NJ Route 18 North at County Route 547 South

[edit]

Route 18 North at Route 547 is self-explanatory, but where does the GSP come in? I looked at a map and there are no GSP entrances from that side —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.70.72 (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USRD GA audit

[edit]

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) 03:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. I went to the link, and I just don't see what authority this person has to move the article, especially with such short notice. My main problem with this heavy-handed course of action is that no information is given about specifically what is wrong with this article. It says "if the issues are not resolved within one week"... well, what issues? I just don't get it. What is so horrible about this article that it has to be sent to the cyber-equivalent of Siberia?Njsustain (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody is allowed to send articles to WP:GAR. The problem with this article (as stated on that page) is that there is a monotony of "At x.xx miles, NJ 18 does this. At y.yy miles, NJ 18 does that." etc. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I have removed the mileages from the route description. Dough4872 (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor rewrite

[edit]

The recent total rewrite does not, in my opinion, improve the article. It is poorly written, not of neutral point of view, and is from one person's perspective. I believe it should be reverted. Njsustain (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quality can be improved and it is not from one person's persective. Reverting it will bring more errors in the article. Yours were no better anyway such as (Moar work).Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 18:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Mine" were not the only previous edits to the article. The article has evolved for years from many editors. A change of this magnitude was not appropriate with no discussion taking place. I'm not going to get in a tit for tat with "says you!" comments. The article will simply be reverted. Njsustain (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you do, I will cite WP:POINT violation. The article was missing important information, and the article was falling apart from the writing in 2007. The article needs it, the encyclopedia is supposed be of better work. Fix the prose, don't remove everything.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 18:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you replaced everything with your perspective. Exactly how can you claim the rebuild relieved congestion? Do you drive there in the afternoon? What is this "partial interchange" at paulus blvd. you speak of? Your threatening tone is clear that you have no interest in improving this article, only in forcing your clearly skewed perspective on WP readers. Thanks for "improving" the article many, many contributors have worked on without even so much as a relevant discussion about the material, only implying that everyone else is a bad writer. Toodleloo, road warrior.Njsustain (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop bitching at me. I live in Highland Park. I know what Route 18 is like. But I don't use my point of view for sourcing. I rewrote the entire article the first time, and people have made minor changes over time. Read the history for all I care. I wrote everything I just rewrote in 2007. I have lots of care for the article like I do every other road in the state.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 19:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, calm down. You're acting like no one else cares about their writing (or can write) Let's see if you can be magnanimous and accept others' edits now. How many times does the route description need to say "a short distance later" or "the route continues" or "this tiny little irrelevant road is next to the road we're talking about" or "then you pass by the McDonalds that was going to be built in 1974" There was simply way too much minutia in the route description. We also didn't need to mention three times that the road was going into New Brunswick. The "tunnel for the Rutgers Tennis courts" is another incorrect and myopic POV. It's a park, and it's not a tunnel, and it was not built exclusively for Rutgers, though two decades later Rutgers took charge of its maintenance. The section is "Route Description", not "my walk along Route 18 northbound in New Brunswick." Anyway, I hope you can appreciate that other people have writing skills also, care about article also, and have their own points of view which have just as much right to be expressed and considered.Njsustain (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revert

[edit]

I want to say up front that the recent major changes by an editor were done in good faith, but after attempting to edit the very tediously and redundantly written route description, I really don't see the point. I think the article was fine (or at least better) before these edits. Specifically, I think the article in this state was best:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Jersey_Route_18&oldid=327862167

I would like to revert the article to that status and ask that only incremental edits, rather than the total trashing and replacing of the text which was done, be considered in the future. I believe that editor's changes were disruptive and of an inappropriate scale to be made without discussion, and did not improve the article. Forgive my bluntness, but as I said, while the changes were done in good faith, the style and content of those changes did not improve the article. Njsustain (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put in the equation that the original version was lacking info and in the process, you are destroying the article. Information was missing and was really poorly written in the first place.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be specific about how the article was originally written poorly, what, for example, was missing, and why you can't simply add the information without completely rewriting the article from your own point of view? It's not enough to simply state the article was "written poorly." I'd rather not go into further specifics at this point about why your rewrite was poor from a structural/literary standpoint as you are taking it personally (and therefore not looking at the texts objectively). I want to see others' opinions about the matter. This back and forth does not build any consensus.Njsustain (talk)

Route 33/66 listed both in the major box?

[edit]

Why is Route 33/66 both mentioned in the info box, don't they both parallel at that point with each other between there split to Route 35? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.61.185 (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey Route 18/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
  • Much of the construction history is cited to one source, a SPS.
  • The paragraphs are huge.
  • Not part of the GA standard, but there are >10 interchanges in the infobox.

I will leave this open for a week before demoting. --Rschen7754 22:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The community is wasting its time, given I wrote it over five years ago and I have other on-wiki commitments to care about, just go ahead and demote it. This process isn't even worth it. Mitch32(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 23:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will attempt to fix the article within the week. Dough4872 23:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes made. Dough4872 21:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments by TCN7JM

[edit]
  • Most of the paragraphs in the RD begin with "Route 18".
  • There's some awkward text placement below the southern terminus picture on my screen.
  • The last note in the RJL uses a comma to separate instead of a semicolon. I'm not saying semicolons are better, but consistency is.

That's all I have to say regarding general layout and stuff. TCN7JM 22:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that the basic stuff is done, I think I'll start with an actual review in a little while. TCN7JM 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually still getting a text placement error with "(Wayside Road)[2]." below the very first picture, try splitting the paragraphs in a different manner or something? TCN7JM 23:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Dough4872 23:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now for some comments:

  1. "40.16 miles long" should be formatted as "40.16-mile-long". I'm pretty sure you know how to do this with the template.
    Fixed. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "At that point, Route 18 designated onto the alignment." You're missing a word there.
    Added word. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You should mention in the lead when it was that the route was extended north to CR 622.
    Added. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The second paragraph of the lead as a whole uses too much "current" stuff. You should fix some wording here.
    Changed some wording. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The last sentence of the lead breaks the flow of time. It goes from the '50s in the first paragraph to 2004 and the present in the second, then just jumps back to the '80s.
    Reordered into chronological order. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. You say the route passes under "Route 138 as a four-lane freeway". Is Route 138 the four-lane freeway or is Route 18?
    Reworded to make clearer. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. You use "crosses under" twice in the same sentence once.
    Removed duplicate wording. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "The route continues through Glendola, and Brighton Avenue (southbound Interchanges 7A and 7B),." This whole sentence is just messed up. It makes no sense grammatically and you have two punctuation marks at the end.
    Fixed sentence. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "and interchanges with Route 33, and County Route 17 at exit 8." I don't think there needs to be a comma there.
    Removed comma. 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  10. heaing → heading
    Fixed. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The last sentence of the first paragraph needs to be reworded. It makes no sense grammatically.
    Reworded. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. In the second paragraph, how can a massive interchange be encountered with exits for another interchange?
    Reworded. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The next sentence has no end punctuation.
    Added. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The last sentence of the subsection reads a bit choppy, to be honest, and it does not start with a capital letter.
    Fixed. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. The freeway cannot end and become an arterial highway at the same time. The route itself does, but the freeway does not.
    Fixed. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I have no issues with specificity, but isn't naming all of the roads the highway crosses in a list separated by commas a little much? It just adds unneeded fluff to the prose and drags out the paragraphs even longer.
    Cut down on mention of intersections. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. "After the interchanges with County Routes 535 (Cranbury Road).," Uggh...first of all, why is "Route" pluralized when you use the noun again just after this, and why are there two punctuation marks when you don't need any?
    Fixed. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. "Blvd." should be written out.
    Spelled out. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Why does it matter which ramps Route 18 is near when it passes under the turnpike?
    Fixed. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. The last sentence is kind of abrupt. What I mean by that is that you could expand on it a bit by mentioning which direction the roadway expands in and where toward.
    Expanded. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's it for the lead and RD. I want you to fix this stuff before I move on to further sections. TCN7JM 00:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix these in the next couple days. Dough4872 01:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes made. Dough4872 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History and onwards
  1. The first sentence needs to be split, it's nearly three lines long.
    Split. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "implemented an in law" is a bit redundant seeing as the system was implemented into the law.
    Removed. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. That sentence, by the way, is another run on.
    Split. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The "direction of designation" stuff is interesting, but it would be nice if it was written more formally.
    Reworded. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. So...Route 35 became a part of Route 18 or just the cancelled freeway? Elaborate a bit on which of those it was as well as what part of Route 18 it became.
    Route 35 currently follows a surface alignment through the area but was planned to be rerouted onto a new freeway alignment. Clarified. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Why is "from U.S. Route 1" in parentheses?
    Fixed. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A conversion template should be used to convert USD in 1962 to those in the latest possible date supported by the template. That the numbers from 1962 are in 1962 USD is a given.
    Added conversion template. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Do you have an exact year for the cancellation of the extension to Bound Brook?
    No. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 2.3 miles → 2.3-mile
    Fixed. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. A period and a comma are next to each other somewhere.
    Fixed. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The second sentence of the "Extension through Piscataway" subsection is not a complete sentence.
    Fixed. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "Interstate 287 (interchange 8)" - Does this mean "exit 8"? If so, just use that term and try to avoid the parentheses.
    Fixed. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The first sentence of the third paragraph in the aforementioned section is not grammatically correct.
    Reworded. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The 34/35/70 image caption looks to be a bit too long, and the last sentence of it, because it is a complete sentence, needs a period.
    Cut down on caption. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. "Some of the right-of-way were" → "Some of the right-of-way was"
    Fixed. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Complext? That has to be a misspelling.
    Fixed. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. You should get rid of that one usage of "current" referring to the Park & Ride.
    Removed. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I think that subheader can ditch the comma and read "New exit ramp in Old Bridge Township".
    Changed. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I don't think you need to mention what looks like the exact directions of getting through the residential area.
    Removed. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. In the CR 527 parentheses section, why is Monmouth County mentioned twice?
    Removed. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. "Rt 18" needs to be spelled out.
    Spelled out. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. You're a bit inconsistent in your capitalization of things. Namely, the "freeway" in "Route 18 Freeway". There's one that doesn't look like it should be capitalized at all, the last word in "Old Bridge Improvements".
    Fixed. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. The second-to-last sentence in the section needs some commas.
    Added. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. The last sentence sounds wrong because there needs to be a preposition between "NJDOT" and "when".
    Added. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks to be it for me. TCN7JM 02:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes made. Dough4872 02:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When to change the article to show Route 18 ending at I-287

[edit]

Notwithstanding the route inventory, we are either close to or past the time to update this article. I bring the following evidence (which may partly be WP:OR, though sometimes we update highway articles based on observation):

  • The construction along Hoes Lane and Centennial Avenue is now complete, with the exception of the resurfacing of a small bridge on the section of Centennial between Hoes and Possumtown Road.
  • The Route 18 shield has not been added to the exit signs for Exit 8 along I-287. However, the rest of the signage is complete and in place.
  • See reference 22: NJDOT has described Hoes Lane as "Route 18" at least once.
  • Google Maps now marks Hoes Lane as NJ 18.

I'd appreciate some thoughts from others. Note: I may begin to edit this article inside <!-- comment marks -->, so that it is ready to go when we decide to pull the trigger. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81: There are End NJ 18 signs that coincideс with the route terminating at I-287 Exit 8 on Centennial Avenue and Possumtown Road. Also the signage on I-287 at Exit 8 indicates that you exit to NJ 18. I think its about time this article was update to reflect the extension to I-287. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brudder Andrusha: I agree. I'll get at it over the course of the week. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update question

[edit]

@Mr. Matté: Thank you for fixing this up so well. I appreciate that. The one intersection that I would put back in is Hoes Lane–Centennial Ave.–Old New Brunswick Rd., not because it's exceptionally major, but because Route 18 does turn at that point. Do you have a problem with my restoring that? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the MOS:RJL standards for junction lists, we generally don't include intersections that don't include a state highway (or in NJ's case a 500 county route as well). Other RJLs don't include turning points along the road, for example County Route 553 (New Jersey)Major intersections ([2]). If you do want to be bold and ignore all rules, I won't revert. —Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 16:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Matté and Brudder Andrusha: I think most of the extension information is now incorporated. I'm not quite sure what verb tenses to use in the section § Piscataway, so if either of you (or anyone else) knows how to tackle that I'd appreciate it.
More to the point, though, for a GA: It seems that there is one really major piece of information missing, plus one related question mark. Consider, from the beginning of the history section:
  • The description of Route S-29 doesn't make sense given modern street names; at present Washington Ave. in Middlesex Borough does not reach US 22.
  • Perhaps more to the point, though, at some point in Piscataway, this route merged onto River Rd. Then, over time, the road was combined with Route S-28, following current Rt. 27 into New Brunswick to George St., thence out of New Brunswick (more or less through the Douglass campus) and on to a route more or less resembling current Route 18 (or at least current CR 527).
  • This article completely skips the following questions:
(a) At what point (or points) was the route designation moved to the freeway near Burnet St.? Was it done in stages?
(b) At what point (or points) was the end truncated? Certainly when I first came to the area, Route 18 began at River Rd. and proceeded over the John Lynch Memorial Bridge. I saw paper maps at the time showing Route 18 as following River Rd from there at least to I-287, but I never saw signage reflecting that.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Jersey Route 18. 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: 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) 03:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Jersey_Route_18&oldid=1204262142"