331:, both coming off the GWB southbound and about 1000 feet apart. In picture 1, the TP shield, along with I-80, is smaller than I-95, implying that that route hasn’t begun yet until later. Yet picture 2 shows both I-95 and the TP under “SOUTH” and the TP isn’t under “TO” like I-80 and the parkway are, implying that the TP has begun. I didn’t notice it until driving home today, and it just got me thinking more about this dispute on whether the so-called turnpike in Fort Lee is part of the real, mainline, or if it is not mainline, or if the NJTA doesn’t even know the answer either. There’s a small sign under the Fletcher Ave overpass that says “Begin/End NJTA Jurisdiction” but that doesn’t quite answer the question.
324:
328:
31:
131:
303:
section, and they contain a lot of detail that may be excessive. The "In popular culture" may contain indiscriminate, trivial mentions, and many of the entries are unsourced. If I had seen this nomination sooner, I would have recommended that it be withdrawn, because many of the issues mentioned in GA3 have not been addressed adequately. –
346:
I do think that small sign does indeed answer the question. While I-95 north of the interchange with US 46 wasn't transferred to NJTA control until many years after its construction, and was itself built later than the rest of the
Turnpike, it is now part of the Turnpike and Fort Lee is the northern
79:
What was, like, the point of labeling I-78 inbetween the mainline and Jersey City as part of the turnpike but a separate extension? Or more specifically, which came first, the turnpike extension or building of I-78? If it’s I-78, what was the point of the NJTA buying this part of roadway and calling
95:
The
Turnpike extension came first, opened in 1958 to provide a branch connection between the Turnpike and Jersey City and the Holland Tunnel. The full completion of I-78 didn't happen until the 70s. So it was a case of part of the toll roads of the northeast being made part of the Interstate system
302:
I know this nomination has been failed already, but I do not think the article is broad in coverage, either. There is more that can be said about the turnpike's history between the 1950s and the 1990s. The first six paragraphs of the "2000s to present" section are longer than the "1950s to 1990s"
271:
I'm afraid this is going to be a quickfail. The article is not at all ready for GAN. I see a citation needed tag, an unreliable source tag, a full citation needed tag, and multiple paragraphs with no citations. Please address these issues, and the unresolved issues from
99:
The answers to your question are in the article in I-78 in New Jersey, which I linked in this article. Just mentioning that because this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not questions about the subject of the article.
136:
169:
159:
208:
141:
284:
280:
223:
59:
227:
164:
292:
202:
372:
273:
187:
38:
288:
198:
368:
243:
At least one unreliable source tag, and several areas with no citations, plus multiple dead links as citations.
47:
17:
367:
does anyone think that the Spurs and other auxiliary routes should be a different color from the main route?
336:
85:
183:
308:
352:
105:
80:
it part of the turnpike even though most people not very knowledgeable of roadways don’t think it?
332:
81:
376:
356:
340:
312:
296:
212:
109:
89:
304:
348:
101:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
255:
I do not see anything glaring, but have not fully evaluated this criterion.
237:
Several issues with prose, not to mention multiple areas lacking citations.
190:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
226:. This is how the article, as of January 10, 2023, compares against the
283:. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it
25:
279:
When these issues are addressed, the article can be
319:Really though, where *is* the northern terminus?
8:
267:I have not fully evaluated this criterion.
119:
249:Think we are generally in OK shape here.
150:
122:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
75:What’s the point of Newark extension?
7:
287:. Thank you for your work so far.—
24:
218:Failed "good article" nomination
29:
110:00:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
90:22:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
1:
313:01:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
297:20:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
274:Talk:New Jersey Turnpike/GA3
222:This article has failed its
213:20:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
188:Talk:New Jersey Turnpike/GA4
377:19:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
392:
253:4. Neutral point of view?:
357:10:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
341:05:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
228:six good article criteria
18:Talk:New Jersey Turnpike
276:, before renominating.
224:Good article nomination
247:3. Broad in coverage?:
42:of past discussions.
289:Trainsandotherthings
199:Trainsandotherthings
369:NintendoTTTEfan2005
235:1. Well written?:
178:
177:
72:
71:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
383:
132:Copyvio detector
120:
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
391:
390:
386:
385:
384:
382:
381:
380:
365:
323:Take a look at
321:
241:2. Verifiable?:
220:
182:This review is
174:
146:
118:
96:after the fact.
77:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
389:
387:
364:
361:
360:
359:
329:This Image (2)
325:This Image (1)
320:
317:
316:
315:
269:
268:
262:
256:
250:
244:
238:
219:
216:
193:
192:
176:
175:
173:
172:
167:
162:
156:
153:
152:
148:
147:
145:
144:
142:External links
139:
134:
128:
125:
124:
117:
114:
113:
112:
97:
76:
73:
70:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
388:
379:
378:
374:
370:
362:
358:
354:
350:
345:
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
333:Jason Ingtonn
330:
326:
318:
314:
310:
306:
301:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
277:
275:
266:
263:
260:
257:
254:
251:
248:
245:
242:
239:
236:
233:
232:
231:
229:
225:
217:
215:
214:
210:
207:
204:
200:
197:
191:
189:
185:
180:
179:
171:
168:
166:
163:
161:
158:
157:
155:
154:
149:
143:
140:
138:
135:
133:
130:
129:
127:
126:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
93:
92:
91:
87:
83:
82:Jason Ingtonn
74:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
366:
322:
278:
270:
264:
258:
252:
246:
240:
234:
221:
205:
195:
194:
181:
170:Instructions
78:
65:
43:
37:
281:renominated
265:6. Images?:
259:5. Stable?:
184:transcluded
36:This is an
347:terminus.
305:Epicgenius
285:reassessed
261:Okay here.
137:Authorship
123:GA toolbox
349:oknazevad
196:Reviewer:
160:Templates
151:Reviewing
116:GA Review
102:oknazevad
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
209:contribs
165:Criteria
39:archive
363:Spurs
186:from
16:<
373:talk
353:talk
337:talk
327:and
309:talk
293:talk
203:talk
106:talk
86:talk
375:)
355:)
339:)
311:)
295:)
230::
211:)
108:)
88:)
371:(
351:(
335:(
307:(
291:(
206:·
201:(
104:(
84:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.