Talk:New Jersey Route 133

92 was to end at 95 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI (talk • contribs) 20:25, December 2, 2005

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey Route 133/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ---Dough4872 19:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments:

1. In sentence "Although Route 133 is a freeway, it has no direct connections to any other freeways (the connection to the Turnpike at Route 33 leads through several traffic lights).", remove phrase from parentheses and add "as" after freeways.
2. Add wikilink to State Highway Route 31A.
3. Remove parentheses before "Route 31A".
4. "empty lands of trees and open fields" sounds awkward.
5. "following parallel to County Route 571": change "following" to "running".
6. "desolate fields": remove "desolate".
7. "residential homes and commercial buildings" sounds wordy.
8. "Route 133 grows a wide median": change "grows" to "gains".
9. "as it crosses on a bridge over a river": What specific river does it cross?
10. "with a large condominium community surrounding the westbound lanes.": change "surrounding" to "near".
11. "The eastbound lanes however, remain undisturbed" sounds weird.
12. "desolate lands": again, remove "desolate".
13. "continues its way now eastward": wordy, changed to "continues eastward".
14. The entire route description is sourced from Bing Maps. Can other sources, such as the SLD, be added?
15. "the Turnpike" sounds colloquial.
16. The section heading "Route 92 plans spawn Route 133" sounds awkward, reword.
17. The sentence "The bid for the construction of the new four-lane freeway was spawned on the Schiavone Construction Company in 1996 for a cost of $57 million (1996 USD)." sounds awkward.
18. Are there any more details that can be added about the construction of the freeway?
19. "the Turnpike Authority" should be "the New Jersey Turnpike Authority".
20. In the Future section, do not use colloquial terms such as "33", "Milford", "the turnpike", and "the bypass".
21. The Future section seems a little wordy. Can it be simplified?
22. Remove See also to Penns Neck Bypass as it is a redlink.

I am placing the article on hold. ---Dough4872 19:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed your stuff. However: Do NOT pass this article. This is a major conflict of interest, and I wished you had not reviewed this. DO NOT pass it until a second, non USRD member has reviewed it.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a huge conflict of interest. --Rschen7754 21:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was a little weary on reviewing this at first, but I thought there was no COI as I was not a major contributor to "this" specific article. ---Dough4872 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a second opinion on the article. ---Dough4872 19:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fail. I don't think this meets the GA criteria because of problems with the prose and an unreliable source used in one of the chapters.

• The lead section does seem to demonstrate why this road is notable
• I would make the lead section shorter and less detailed. I believe it should be a more general summary and immediately understandable for readers who don't know what New Jersey Route 33 or Tri-State Transportation Commission are, for example.
• There is a massive amount of detail in the article. Is all of this really necessary? The route description chapter is based solely on a bing maps source, and thus notability (coverage in reliable third-party sources) is not demonstrated.
• The bing maps source (currently ref nr 2) is not a reliable source (it's a primary source, and the road description taken from it is only the interpretation of the editor.) This must be replaced with something else.
• Original proposal chapter: change "then-modern" and "then-governor" to "modern" and "governor". No need to use the prefix.
• There are many road and place names in the article, but the article doesn't really tell where those are located. For this reason, the article is not very readable to non-locals. Wikipedia articles should be written for the general public. The article should give a short description of the roads and places mentioned.
• The "future" section says: "...released its proposals regarding Interchange 8. The current Interchange 8 would be demolished...", but the article does not tell what "Interchange 8" is, it's has not been mentioned before and there is no wikilink for it. The reader is again left guessing here.
• The article is missing an overall map of the road and of the general area. Adding such a map would help the reader a lot.

There seems to be quite a lot to fix in the article. The worst problem is that it gives the impression of being just a list of details, without telling why all the plans, decision, roads and features are notable and the article gives little context. Offliner (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with most of the other comments, but maps are not a primary source. [1] User:Davemeistermoab/maps describes the limitations of maps, which does not include route descriptions. That being said, the route description should use other sources besides *just* the map. --Rschen7754 21:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, I agree that maps are not a primary source. Offliner (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Jersey Route 133. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628183145/http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1953_New_Jersey_state_highway_renumbering to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1953_New_Jersey_state_highway_renumbering

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) 03:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)