Talk:County Route 676 (Middlesex County, New Jersey)

message: Please add more citations to the article. If no reliable sources are found I will request a GA review. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it all.Strangely it only needed 2 types, the SLD and the book I got info from.Mitchazenia(8300+edits) 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not strange. That just shows that there isn't enough information and it does need more references. Primarily, you just use a map and a book none of us can access. It needs more information. Have you searched online for more history of the road? When was it first built? Why was it built? How much money? Did it ever have a different route? Is there anything notable about the route? Is it the shortest county route, perhaps, in the county? Have any severe automobile accidents occurred there? Is it all just one lane each way? When was the light on it built? Was there ever a proposal for another light? Another lane? Extending the route? Are there traffic counts for the road? Metric units are needed. For these reasons, I've delisted it as a GA. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is some answers:
#When was it first built? - Before 1888 -all i know.
#Is it all just one lane each way? 1 north, 1 south.
#Is it the shortest county route, perhaps, in the county? No. 692, 807, 661, 663, 691, 693, 701, 702, 694-699, 690, 688, 685, 680, and many more.
#Why was it built? To me a connector route to Woodbridge Avenue and Lincoln Highway.
#Was there ever a proposal for another light? Yes and now mentioned.
#Extending the route? No 
#Are there traffic counts for the road? Its a speeding disaster.
#Have any severe automobile accidents occurred there? Since living at MP .55 on 676, I have seen 3-5 car accidents, but none fatal. And Jun Choi's plans never mentioned a fatal one.
#Have you searched online for more history of the road? As you can see yes.
#Did it ever have a different route? Nope.
#Another lane? Doubt it
Mitchazenia(8300+edits) 01:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I mean that those would be good things to put in the article, with sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#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.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail:  
There are still a number of problems with this article, but they may be minor enough to fix quickly in time to pass.  The prose definitely still needs some work.  A lot of it still isn't written in an encylcopedic tone.  For example, "The Riverview Avenue part of CR 676 is the second shortest part of the route and the farthest south, lasting only 0.19 miles with four small intersections."  You generally wouldn't hear someone refer to the "Riverview Avenue part" of a route, and the phrase "four small intersections" could be corrected simply by changing the word "small" to "minor".  I suggest someone other than the major contributor going through the article to perform copyedits.  (In addition to tone, the references are inconsistently placed, with missing spaces and the like.)
There are still some problem with references.  One of them is the opposite problem the article had before.  It's probably not necessary to cite the SLD 18 different times, as much of them aren't "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged".  That being said, there are a select few sentences that probably need to be removed and/or cited.
I think the major problem with this article that may prevent it from being a good article is being "broad in its coverage".  A lot of the route description section seems to just be transcribed from maps and/or the SLD.  The major problem though, is the history section.  When you read it carefully, you realize that it doesn't say anything about the history of County Route 676.  It's all about the history of Duclos Lane, which is just one section of the route.  When did the road become a county highway?  Did it have a different number before Middlesex County adopted 600-series numbers?  Was it all commissioned at the same time, or were some sections added to the route at a later date?
I think in order to be a good article, it needs to have far more information on the history of the route, rather than the road.
Finally, as a very minor thing with the images, the two photographs should be cropped to eliminate the black background visible around the edges. -- NORTH talk 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination #2

message: 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) 07:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: USRD GA audit