Talk:New Jersey Turnpike/GA2

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

Reviewer: Oakley77 (talk · contribs) 13:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Review
 :

:

:

.

. :



Discussion
Please feel free to comment! Oakley77 (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this article is far from meeting the GA criteria and needs to have a second look taken. Here are my reasons why:


 * 1) There are numerous unreferenced statements throughout the article.
 * 2) There is poor formatting with embedded tables ans bulleted lists.
 * 3) There are quite a few dead links in the article.
 * 4) Reference 21 is a WP:SPS and is therefore not reliable.
 * 5) There are some poorly constructed one-sentence paragraphs in the article.
 * 6) The Headquarters and operations facilities section should have a summary of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority article.  Dough  48  72  15:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully endorse comments above; this article is far from the GA standard. --Rschen7754 18:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I also endorse the comments, with some of my own: Because of these comments, and the others, I have to respectfully disagree with the opinion of the review in terms of criteria 1a, 2b and 3a/b. There is plenty of work to be done to bring this up to the expectations of a GA.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Most of the RD section isn't sourced, which is a shame, because that's the easiest thing to source in a highway article! Plot the driving directions from one terminus to the other in the online mapping service of your choice. Switch that map's display to the version that includes the satellite/aerial imagery (or the hybrid if needed to retain the labels). Then export the link to that and paste it into google maps, bing maps or for an instant reference. Add a citation to a reputable paper map, and cite the two items in pairs at the end of each paragraph as needed. I recommend the state DOT's map, or if the NJTA has one, use that; other cartography company's products are good, so a recent Rand McNally atlas or Universal Map folding map works too.
 * 2) The Bridges subsection doesn't need to exist. Just note where the bridges are along the prose description of the route. If you need to source details in your description of the routing of the highway, just add the additional footnotes inline if they aren't noted on the maps used for the rest of the RD section. Segregating them like this means that we don't have a continuous flow of the description of the highway from one end of the other to the overall RD section, which is poor writing style.
 * 3) I see a handful of instances where words are used as proper nouns when they are not.
 * 4) "When traveling from the North" in this case, "north" is not a proper noun, but a direction.
 * 5) "which parallels the Turnpike" in this case, "turnpike", without any modifiers, is not a proper noun, regardless of the local idiomatic usages. It is a colloquialism in the capitalized format, and that's not proper for an encyclopedic work outside of direct quotations.
 * 6) "the Southern Terminus " is not a proper noun. Please audit the entire article for misuse of capitalization and correct it.
 * 7) If we're going to include a "Headquarters and operations facilities", then per WP:SUMMARY, we need a summary of the other article here. Honestly, I'd can it as a section. You have ample links to the authority in the article. If the HQ building is along the turnpike, just make a note of it in the RD like any other landmark.
 * Ok, pet peeve time: in the bottom of the infobox and at the top of the history section, you have the icon graphics for the old New Jersey Highway 100 and 300 designations.
 * 1) In the infobox, switch them out for text, because at the 20px size, they're illegible. Do it just like the Route 700 designation in the first line, but add "Route" to all three.
 * 2) In the history, please use infobox road small to not only show the older markers for the now unused designations, but provide a little context. U.S. Route 16 in Michigan, off the top of my head, has the M-16 designation shown in its history section that way. The other option is to make them a proper thumbnail, maybe like I did with M-5 (Michigan highway) with a caption that explains why you're showing us those graphics.
 * 3) Do we really need the whole Kathleen Troast Pitney quote? Can it be paraphrased without losing the information you're trying to impart? If so, paraphrase and summarize.
 * 4) The history section is kinda long, so you might consider adding some subsections if there are logical breaks in the chronology. The US 16 article I linked above has divided the history up into a few eras so that the section isn't a massive wall of text and photos. That's also a good technique for long RD sections, like U.S. Route 131.
 * 5) Note, in this case, I would leave "Services" elevated to a main section per WP:USRD/STDS instead of demoting it to a subsection of the RD like in the US 131 case.
 * 6) I would also promote Tolls to a main section instead of leaving it in the RD as a subsection per USRD/STDS.
 * 7) Popular culture sections are general somewhat despised, but I would keep it.
 * 8) I wouldn't format it as a list though since you could put it into a nice prose summary. Either way, can we at least have a short introduction into the subject like, "The New Jersey Turnpike has been featured in several/some/a few times in the media. These depictions include the Bruce Springsteen song..." That way you're segueing into the topic. Remember, each item listed will require a citation, and even if the prose already lists the name of the article, song and album, I would toss in a footnote for that source for consistency with the other items.
 * 9) The only thing is that it shouldn't separate the History section from the Future section, since both are dealing with the chronology of the subject.
 * 10) A good section order might instead be:
 * RD, with geographic subsections and the speed limits subsection if that can't be integrated into the rest better
 * 1) Tolls, or Services
 * 2) Services, or Tolls
 * 3) Popular culture
 * 4) History
 * 5) Future
 * 6) Exit list
 * 7) See also
 * 8) References
 * 9) Further reading
 * 10) External links
 * 11) As for the future section. you might be better served by trimming and condensing content here. At some point, it needs to be summarized (per WP:UNDUE) and merged into the history. Try not to go too overboard now, or the s-merging will be harder after the events are done. If you can, kill the entire table there in favor of a simple text description of the project.
 * 12) In the exist list, the mileage column should be on the left, and the exit column should be on the right. The major bridges can be listed here as well, like in the Interstate 75 in Michigan exit list.
 * 13) The citations aren't formatting consistently.
 * 14) Some press releases are using cite press release, and therefore have "(Press release)." in the citation, and some aren't and have a manually formatted "NJDOT News Release."
 * 15) Others are using inconsistent italics (fn 27) for the title of a report by formatting it as the title of a book apparently.
 * 16) Many of the rest are incomplete, like fn 28 that lacks author, work/publisher, publisher location (where appropriate), date and other attribution information.
 * 17) Last comment, but I'm personally opposed to lengthy quotations in references. They bulk up the footnotes section. I do one of three things when the information may be needed for future verification and there are concerns with losing it to a dead link:
 * 18) Pre-emptively archive the source using webcitation.org like I did to the online news articles on County Road 595 (Marquette County, Michigan)
 * 19) Enclose the quotation in tags after the citation template, but inside the tags.
 * 20) Paste the quoted material on the talk page of the article, like was done with the text of the Memorandum of Understanding contracts for M-108 (Michigan highway) or M-168 (Michigan highway).

Review failed as an improper review. The normal course of action would be to delete the review and try for another reviewer, but as others have opined against promotion, I've gone ahead and failed the review. --Rschen7754 00:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Would any of you be willing to help improve this page with all of the suggestions listed? It seems like more work than I thought. I will start finding more citations and such. Tinton5 (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)