Talk:County Route 622 (Middlesex County, New Jersey)

message: I've failed this GA for these reasons specified below:
* Where is the proof that this route was formed in 2000?  I see no source indicating this claim
* The lead is supposed to adequately summarize the article.  There is no mention of any history in the lead.  Most readers will read the lead and think, "well, this is what will be in the article."
* The infobox is not formatted to WP:USRD/INNA standards.  Progression should be from south to north.
** Additionally, the I-287 shield is not sized properly.
* "Notable places along the route" is POV; suggest it be "Attractions".
** Each place in that section should have its own subsection, with a small blurb describing each.
** There also needs to be sources to prove that they even exist.
* Overall, a poorly sourced article that needs improvement. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: Failed GA review because....
#Lead has problems. "Middlesex County Route 622 (abbreviated CR 622; formerly CR 514 Spur) is a county highway in Middlesex County, New Jersey." Formerly CR 514 Spur should not be there in the first sentence or in parathesis.
#"From 1953 to an unknown date, the road was designated as a county maintained route known as County Route 514 Spur.[5][6]" The unknown date should be researched and verified.
#The "Major junctions" section should be "Major intersections". Also, the table/chart needs to follow WP:USRD standards by having the road names in paranthesis after the Route number. Also, the "Begin/End Concurrency" with shields should be "Western/Northern/Southern/Eastern terminus of concurrency" with no shields.
#"References" section should use , instead of "</references>".
Don't give up, this isn't much to fix. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: I'm not failing this article as a GA, but I'd like to make a few comments.
*How do you know it was taken over or numbered in about 1947?
*How do you know it changed to CR 514 Spur in 1953?
*How do you know it changed to CR 622 in 2000?  is not a reliable source.
*Second person is inappropriate for articles.
*The route description is generally badly-written, with little more than a junction list in text form. Why is it called River Road? (Hint: it parallels the Raritan River.) Is there any history to the road?
* says it was once part of Route 18. Is that true?
--NE2 07:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 26, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?:  While the article basically complies with the letter of the Manual of Style, it is still quite poorly written. It fails to give any transitions between topics and often fails to state the obvious. The route description is very dry and fails to adequately tie in notable and interesting geography, such as natural features, commercial enterprises, and points of historic interest. An article about a road should have much more context. It is vital that the article state what makes this road notable (other than that its a major transportation route).
:2. Factually accurate?:  Most good here, but remember that a cite at the end of the paragraph is really the bare minimum. Any fact likely to be challenged should be directly cited.
:3. Broad in coverage?:  The intro needs work per WP:LEAD. It should not include detailed information that is not present later in the article; remember to think of the intro as a complete overview of the content of the article. The history section needs major expansion, and does not give a complete historical recount of the route.
:4. Neutral point of view?:   The article certainly is neutral.
:5. Article stability?  Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.
:6. Images?:  Images illustrating the subject are present, comply with WP:MOS#Images and are properly accounted for.
As the necessary improvements would take longer than seven days, and especially because the article meets one or more of the quick-fail criteria, I did not apply the customary hold period. As this is the third failed nomination of this article, I strongly suggest that those interested in making the necessary changes to the article do a detailed assessment per the GA criteria before re-nominating.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— VanTucky Talk 00:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination