New Jersey Route 70 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
December 1, 2009	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 October 2009, April 2019.
	This article was the selected article of the New Jersey task force in November 2013.

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.

Comment[edit]

I don't think the GSP shield was appropriate on the NJ 70 major info box, because there's only one entrance to the GSP North from NJ 70 East, unless you count the Westbound U-Turn, but still not big enough then Route 9 is.

Nextbarker 06:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

It's still the Garden State Parkway, which makes it pretty much automatically major. If there was an issue with there being too many junctions, we might take out the Parkway and keep US 9, but that's not the case here. -- NORTH ^talk 00:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nomination review[edit]

On hold, see review page. --MWOAP (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey Route 70/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWOAP (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review as per Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles[edit]

Criteria 1[edit]

Done

Lead Section is way too specific. It gets into article details which are in below text. Review Wikipedia:Lead section (tagged)
- I have cut a few sentences. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Corrected, not an issue any more --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling issue in 1.2 Paragraph 2: "neighborhood" is spelled wrong, simple correction.
- I do not see "neighborhood" in that paragraph. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Found it but surprised to see that it was not spelled incorrectly, not an issue any more --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are dead links. Consider removing.
- Fixed. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Corrected, not an issue any more --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2[edit]

Done

In section one, the last paragraph, first section; I fail to see where citation 5 comes into play. I think that this should just be left with the second sentence.
- In the newspaper article, it says Route 70 is a crush in the Cherry Hill area, referring to it being congested. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, It works, not an issue any more --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In section two, citation 6 fails to provide some reference as to the page number. You might want to contact the person who cited it or remove/recite.
- Found page number. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Corrected, not an issue any more --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citation Eight is not overseen or edited by any authority. Recommend removal of sentence or new citation. Feel free to tell me why this is reliable.
- The information in the source is reliable as it is from annual reports produced by the State of New Jersey. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then, why don't we just link that instead, that way we can also assure that this page will not be altered. My main concern is it says from what we can tell, not assuming a NPOV. --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no specific page for the annual reports, and the information in the current source hasn't changed as it is supposed to be a direct quote of the state. A previous discussion at WP:RS/Noticeboard also stated the source was reliable since it reproduces primary sources. ---Dough4872 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Corrected, not an issue any more.
Citation Nine has no "convenience link". Provide link.
- Wikilinked to Wikisource text of 1927 renumbering. ---Dough4872 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Corrected, not an issue any more --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 3[edit]

Done

Criteria 4[edit]

Done

Criteria 5[edit]

Done

Criteria 6[edit]

Done

Criteria 7[edit]

Done

Final Call[edit]

Done --MWOAP (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to notify me when these are fixed and I would be happy to redo the review. Also, use my talk page to ask me any questions about this.

Thanks for the review. I have replied to the above changes. ---Dough 48 72 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have skimmed over your edits, looks pretty good, a few more things though. I will look in to it tomorrow (it is late). Also, it is a little hard for me to keep track of these right now, so if you could put the talkback template on the user talk page that would help. Thanks, MWOAP (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ONE MORE CLEAN UP ISSUE TO EDIT OR DISCUSS! Likely to be declared a pass in the next 24 hours. --MWOAP (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now Nominated. --MWOAP (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New Jersey Route 70. 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) 04:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]