Talk:New Jersey Turnpike/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 01:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Before I get into the full review, there are two dab links that need to be fixed: John Fenwick and Mansfield Township, New Jersey. There are also five external link issues (use the tool in the toolbox to see them).
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See below
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Some of this content should be spun off into a separate New Jersey Turnpike Authority article. Since the authority also maintains the GSP, trying to add everything needed about the authority here isn't very focused.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Looks fine
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No evidence of edit warring.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * See below.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article just needs too much work, and I don't think it can be done in the usual seven-day hold period. The article can be renominated after the issues are fixed.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article just needs too much work, and I don't think it can be done in the usual seven-day hold period. The article can be renominated after the issues are fixed.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Criterion 1 comments
 * The bulleted lists should go and get converted into prose in the "Recent developments" and "Future developments" sections.
 * The lead is too short for an article of this size; it should be about three good-size paragraphs in length and summarize every section of the article. Some sections will have more content in the lead, which is fine, but every section needs to be in there somehow, and the overall length needs expansion
 * I'll break down the prose comments by section below, but this article needs work.


 * Criterion 2 comments
 * "New Jersey Turnpike in popular culture" needs citations for each item, especially that direct quotation. The simplest solution would be to add footnotes to the movies and songs. The Sopranos item should be cited to some production notes about the show.
 * Beyond that section, there are whole parts of the article missing citations. Please make sure that all statistics, quotations, opinions and and counter-intuitive statements are cited.
 * Footnote 22 is to a self-published source, and it needs to be removed and replaced with another source for that information.


 * Criterion 6 comments
 * I have questions about whether or not File:NewJerseyTurnpike.jpg is properly licensed. I would feel better if the original uploader were contacted and an OTRS ticket submitted to verify this work.
 * The captions need to be fixed; only captions that are full sentences should have terminal punctuation. As a side note, I wouldn't force image size unless you're enlarging over the default of 240px... many of these photos are just too small.


 * Non-GA criteria comments
 * The section ordering needs to be improved. There are suggested sections at WP:USRD/STDS that would apply here, that would improve the organization of the article
 * The "Rest areas" and "Emergency assistance" would be better as a "Services" section after the RD section
 * The HQ section should be removed to the authority article.
 * "Toll collection" should just be "Tolls" since it also covers the rates.
 * "Recent developments" should be part of the "History" section.
 * "Future developments" can be simplified to just "Future", and the content there should be simplified and condensed a bit. There's extraneous information that just doesn't need to be there (like the full details of all of the various options considered in the widening project; Why not summarize the key points of the rejected plans and go into detail on the one chosen?)
 * "Minimum speed" should be in the RD section
 * "Further reading" goes after "References" per MOS:LAYOUT.
 * "New Jersey Turnpike in popular culture" should not repeat the subject of the article (MOS:HEAD), and it would be better placed after the History and Future sections and ahead of the exit list.
 * The boldface terms in the RD should be incorporated into the lead and boldfaced there. (The ones for the service plaza names are the exception, and correct per MOS:BOLD.)
 * The cutout shields in the browser of the infobox should be replaced with text; they already appear in the body of the article (although using infobox road small might be better for them).
 * The "See also" section needs to be removed; both links are already in the body of the article.


 * See also section has portal boxes now. Tinton5 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "12-foot (3.7 m)–wide lanes, 10-foot (3.0 m)–wide shoulders" should be "12-foot–wide (3.7 m) lanes, 10-foot–wide (3.0 m) shoulders". Using convert with the  coding would solve that for you.
 * Not quite sure how to do this. Tinton5 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't mention what highway designations the NJTP carries, which is an omission from the lead.


 * RD
 * This is maybe a bit more of a personal preference, but in a sense, it's necessary. The first time a highway designation of a "class" is used, the abbreviation should follow the full name in parentheses. This article doesn't use the abbreviations in the prose, but they are in use in the infobox and exit list, so the abbreviation conventions do need to be introduced. (Since state routes are using "Route 700", there's no need to use this convention.)
 * Once a highway of each type is introduced that way, I personally only use the abbreviations after that point. So if I-295 is the first Interstate mentioned, and I-95 comes second, then I would just abbreviate I-95. Ditto US Highways and county routes.
 * Personally, I don't consider exit numbers to be proper nouns, so they shouldn't be capitalized. They should have a non-breaking space between the word and the number so that they can't fall on opposite sides of a line break. (In other words, type out "exit&amp;nbsp;11" so that "exit" doesn't appear at the end of a line and "11" at the start of the next one.
 * Outside of the lead sentence, "turnpike" when used alone is not a proper now and should not be capitalized unless it is used in the form "New Jersey Turnpike" or similar.
 * "6:00-9:00 northbound, and 16:00-19:00 (4pm-7pm) " two things: use an en dash in ranges like this, and second, either make both sets of time a.m./p.m or using the 24-hour clock. Also note, a.m. and p.m. are abbreviations for ante meridian and post meridian and have periods in them (so a.m. isn't confused for "am", the verb).
 * " HOV lanes exist .. " spell out high-occupancy vehicle and include the abbreviation in parentheses
 * "might "suspend" the" why the scare quotes? They're unnecessary and need to be removed.
 * "The Turnpike also has two extensions: The first .." drop the cap on the "the" after the colon and change the colon to a semicolon or change the colon to a period.
 * " A 6-mile (10 km) long six-lane highway," has to issues. First, it should be "six-mile-long (10 km)" and there should be a comma after the metric conversion to separate the two adjectives: "six-mile-long" and "six-lane" since both equally describe the highway. Round measurements like this with a number under ten should be spelled out and any "-mile-long" constructions need the "long" hyphenated to the "mile".
 * "the NJDOT "sold" the road" the definitive article ("the") isn't needed in front of an acronym that can be pronounced, and once again, square quotes are not appropriate here.


 * Bridges
 * "Interchange 12" should be exit 12 for consistency with the rest of the article.


 * Rest areas
 * "Prior to Exit 13A opening in 1982, there used to be a service area on the northbound side where Exit 13A is located. The service area usage did overlap the existence of Exit 13A (northbound drivers who took Exit 13A missed the service area, and vice versa) but is no longer in existence. Today, one can notice it when exiting at 13A from the northbound car lanes since there is a 'temporary' concrete barrier that's blocking an open asphalt lot."—the whole thing needs a good copy edit.

From here on out, I won't comment further on the prose. The article needs a good copy edit to satisfy criterion 1a. There are many of the same issues that I noted above throughout the remainder of the prose, and they all need to be corrected.


 * Exit list
 * "Boro of Runnemede" is a misspelling; you need "Borough" there.
 * "Boro of Runnemede/Boro of Bellmawr" is the exit on the line between the two? If so, that should be a spaced en dash, not an unspaced slash there.
 * The note below the table would be better above it.

I have removed all of your cute check marks. Please don't mark things as done yourself; that is normally done by the reviewer. I'd be happy to revisit your progress if you like, but adding those check marks like that is akin to me saying the issues are addressed. Based on the renomination's quick-fail, it's clear they aren't, or aren't done appropriately. You can insert comments after anything above (please do so on a separate line, indented below the comment using **) and I'll come back.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Post-review comments: