Talk:New Jersey Route 29

New Jersey Route 29 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
Date	Process	Result
November 1, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

U.S. Roads: State highways / New Jersey Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics

U.S. state highways

Locations

New Jersey

This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.

This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Article recognition:

	A fact from this article was featured on the Did you know? section of the U.S. Roads Portal in December 2010, January 2020.

New Jersey Mid‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey Route 29/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Just to check, are you consciously using a fully referenced lead? Its a preference thing, I guess.

In the lead, you say "A realignment of Route 29 in Lambertville around 2000" Why "around 2000" and not "in 2000"?

There is a lot of "at mile marker this" and "at mile marker that". Is there any way to change this up a bit? I mean, I understand that you're trying to give a comprehensive overview of what roads the route intersects, but this gets a little...monotonous...after a while.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Just a couple of comments regarding prose/MOS, so I am putting the article on hold. Drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone back into the article and replaced some of the monontonus "at mile marker"'s in the route description. The references in the lead are for the reader to verify the information to individual sources. The reason "A realignment of Route 29 in Lambertville around 2000" is stated as such is because the exact year is unknown. Dough4872 (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Nice work and thanks for the quick response. Dana boomer (talk) 18:08, 1 November 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) 04:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dough4872 (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History notes[edit]

(from Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 21:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)) List of notes for Route 29:[reply]

Route 29 from the Raritan-Somerville line to Union opened to traffic on September 13, 1930, to accommodate with the Lambertville-Ringoes portion already paved and opened. The highway was considered a "superhighway" of its time, running from Chestnut Street in Union to Lambertville. ^[1]

References[edit]

^ "Removing Many Unsightly Signs". The New York Times. September 14, 1930. p. 128. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Scenic byway is north of I-95 only???[edit]

Noticed this article says the scenic byway designation is only north of I-95. However, byways.org says its from the South Trenton Tunnel north... http://www.byways.org/explore/byways/2463/travel.html Famartin (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it. Lemme fix it.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 22:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done, the sentence originally was a little different.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New Jersey Route 29. 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) 03:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Removing Many Unsightly Signs". The New York Times. September 14, 1930. p. 128. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]