Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Atlantic City – Brigantine Connector


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was promoted. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic City – Brigantine Connector
review
 * Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: I have worked on getting this article to GA and have since added better sources as well as some more information to the article. If this article passes, it will be the first New Jersey A-class article.
 * Nominated by: Dough4872 (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First comment occurred: 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)




 * I hope to do a full review soon - but don't abbreviate AC and GS in the jct list - it's not like you're short on space in the table. Sources look valid, but ALL CAPS should not be used in the title (even though it may be in the title of the article; it's a Wikipedia thing). --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the caps in the references, however, the abbreviations for the Atlantic City Expressway and Garden State Parkway are part of and are commonly used for many named roads in exit lists. Should I change the templates to show the name in full, rather than abbreviated, for those two roads as well as other named roads? Dough4872 (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since abbreviations are fine for NJ 87 and US 30, they should be fine for the parkway and expressway as well. Plus, jct is occasionally used in infoboxes as well, so I wouldn't spell them out there.  However, the use of periods should be consistent, i.e., since there are periods in "G.S.", they should be in "A.C." as well, and probably also after Pkwy and Expwy. -- Kacie Jane (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the periods in the abbreviations. Dough4872 (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The title should be "Atlantic City – Brigantine Connector" per WP:MOSDASH: "All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items," as is the case here. –  T M F 03:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the title. Dough4872 (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * I'm confused by the words in the lead "with Route 87 to Brigantine, New Jersey," does that mean the connector is routed concurrent with Route 87 until arriving at Brigantine, or the connector terminates at Route 87 just outside of Brigantine.
 * Fixed. Dough4872 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Mirage Resorts president Steve Wynn" I think Steve Wynn should be set apart in comma's, but might want to consult someone more proficient with grammar than myself.
 * Personally, I do not think conmmas would make sense in that phrase. Dough4872 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "who owned the nearby Trump Marina" should definitely be set apart with commas.
 * Added commas. Dough4872 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "while Trump’s casino received a direct ramp from the connector." Doesn't really fit in with the rest of that sentence. Suggest deleting or wording into a new sentence.
 * Split into new sentence. Dough4872 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:$ the first instance of $ does not need to be linked on US specific articles.
 * Delinked. Dough4872 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "New Jersey Transit 's Atlantic City Line. Two wikilinked terms should not be placed together if there is an easy way to separate them.
 * Added possessive "s" to separate links. Dough4872 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "it comes to" is used a little to much in the article. Try to find alternate wordings.
 * Changed a couple instances. Dough4872 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * state of New Jersey officially announced. Officially is implied with the fact that the announcement is from the government.
 * Removed. Dough4872 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ($400 million today) -> (equivalent to $400 million in 2009)
 * This wording is part of Template:Inflation and cannot be changed. Dough4872 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The italicized "87" in the mile list is never explained. If it is referring to route 87 mileposts being used, I disagreed with 2 road FAC's using this convention. Had I not seen other articles that used that convention. I would honestly believe the milepost is 87.xxx with the 87 being italicized on the milepost. To see how other articles have handled this see U.S. Route 50 in Nevada or California State Route 78.
 * Fixed and explained according to the two FAC's. Dough4872 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * MGM Mirage is wikilinked twice in the same paragraph.
 * Delinked second instance. Dough4872 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies it took so long to get to this. There's a lot going on in wikipedia land and I've been swamped. Dave (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have replied to the above changes. Dough4872 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support I did delete one SR 87 milepost that was forgotten. I didn't know there was an inflation template to guarantee the template would be current. Cool. I could have used this on a few articles.


 * Support, excellent work. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments from Kacie Jane
 * The first sentence can be reworded to say "New Jersey" only once. Simply removing it from the Brigantine link would be sufficient, but try to think of even cleaner ways to do it.
 * Fixed. Dough4872 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Second sentence, there's no reason to abbreviate miles there.
 * Fixed. Dough4872 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would combine the last two sentences of the first paragraph – "in north to south order, and features ten bridges..." This comment in particular is just my personal preference, but the last sentence seems choppy to me.
 * Combined sentences. Dough4872 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In both the lead and the history section, "Le Jardin" is in quotes when it probably shouldn't be. (Elsewhere in the history section, it appears without quotes.) Additionally, the word "the" should be removed before the name in the lead.
 * Removed quotes as well as "the". Dough4872 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph in the lead should probably be reordered, expanded, and/or split into two. While I realize it matches the chronological order of the history section, in the lead it reads as a single sentence on the planning, a whole bunch about the casinos, and then another single sentence about the completion.  The first and last sentence work well together, but with all the casino talk in between, the last sentence seems to come out of nowhere.
 * Reordered, moved construction information before casino information within paragraph. Dough4872 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The first sentence in the route description should be reworded so that it doesn't use the words "Atlantic City" four times.
 * Cut mention of "Atlantic City" to two instances. Dough4872 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The third, fourth, and fifth sentences all begin with the word "Past." "Past that interchange, ..." "Past the railroad line, ..." "Past Bacharach Boulevard, ..."  Shake up the wording a bit.
 * Changed around. Dough4872 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The third sentence again contains the words "Atlantic City" three times. Two of these were also in the first sentence, so there should be a way to easily avoid using the full names here.
 * Cut down use of "Atlantic City". Dough4872 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The end of the route description still needs some cleanup to explain what's going on with the mainline and the Exit E ramp. The way it's written now, it goes from Exit E to Exit F, then jumps back to Exit E.  Instead, the article should mention the split where it first talks about Exit E, then list the exits off the mainline, then the exits off the connector.
 * Reordered. Dough4872 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Beach Thoroughfare – coming from a roadgeeking background and not caring a bit about boats, my assumption when I hear the word thoroughfare is some sort of super arterial, but this appears to be a fairly important body of water. I would link it, even though it's a redlink at the moment.  Also, Beach Thorofare seems to be the more common spelling.
 * Changed spelling. Dough4872 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the first paragraph of the history section still needs work. (By putting the words "which was built" there, you're stressing the fact that it was built before you've given the reader any reason to doubt that it would have been.)  More importantly though, there's a hole in the article's coverage.  If these two groups opposed it, why was the at-grade crossing still built?  Even if that one source from DVARP is all you have, explain that it was built because it was the cheapest option.  Then you can avoid wording problems in the current sentence by adding a new sentence afterwards.  "The proposal for the at-grade crossing was opposed because... However, it was built because..." (Contrast this with the following paragraph about the casinos.  If Donald Trump opposed it, why was it still built?  Because he got an exit ramp built to his casino too.)
 * Fixed. Dough4872 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this nomination is taking so long. Hopefully this will be the final round of comments. – Kacie Jane (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking over the article again, I have replied to the above suggestions. Dough4872 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I really like the way you applied my suggestions, particularly the second paragraph of the lead, and the "spiced" wording in the route description. The only place I'm still having trouble is the E-F-G-H-I mess in the route description section.  Looking at a map of the area, I do appreciate all the hard work that's been done, since writing a route description of a spaghetti bowl interchange is inherently difficult.  The major flaws I'm seeing right now are (a) that the article implies that F is an exit on the mainline when it's actually a ramp from the northbound ramp to the mainline and (b) that the article text implies that G-H-I are northbound only exits whereas the exit list notes imply that there are exits in both directions and that the southbound exits are merely unlettered.  The map provided at Ref 14 seems to imply that these exits do in fact exist southbound.  I think the problem is that the route description is concise to the point of being inaccurate.
 * I'm going to be offline for about 10 hours (work IRL), but when I got back I was planning on taking another look at maps and other sources to see if I could take a hack at it myself. But of course, feel free to make any improvements yourself and/or leave me messages on my talk page in the meantime. -- Kacie Jane (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have moved the sentence about Exit F with the information about the northbound ramp. As for the ramp, it is northbound-only. Southbound traffic must use NJ 87 to access the connector at exit D. I clarified this in the route description. Dough4872 (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the issue derives from the unnecessary distinction between a "mainline" and the northbound ramp. In fact, I would argue that the northbound ramp actually is the mainline.  While I realize that NJDOT logs the highway from the ACE to US 30, I think that's primarily for their own convenience (it's kind of a pain to log a single-direction highway with a slew of ramps, and keep in mind they're not the maintaining agency here).  Since the exit letters increase from A to I along a specific path, I think it only makes sense to treat that as the mainline, rather than deal with awkward wording about exits off a northbound-only ramp.  The reason I was having so much trouble deciphering the route description was because I was interpreting it to mean that Exit E went to US 30, Exits G H and I were on a separate ramp that diverged somewhere around the vicinity of Exit E, and that there was a third split that continued to the northern terminus at NJ 87.
 * Here are a couple of related comments that really need to be fixed before I'll fully support promoting the article to A-class:
 * The length in the infobox is listed as 1.98 miles. However, the termini are listed as the ACE and NJ 87, and the distance between these two points on the connector is 2.5 miles according to Google.
 * Used Google length. Dough4872 (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of NJ 87 mileposts in the junction list is rather incorrect. There's no concurrency, so you don't have a point where a Connector milepost is equal to a milepost on NJ 87.  As a result, it's impossible to determine from the junction list what the distance between Exits F (Conn MP 1.59) and H (NJ 87 MP 0.46) is, defeating the purpose of having the mileposts in the table.  Additionally the points used for the mileposts are arbitrary, since they're not on the connector itself.  The milepost for Exit G is the intersection between NJ 87 and NJ 187, which is 1/10 mile east of where the Connector actually crosses over Huron Avenue.
 * Removed NJ 87 mileposts. Dough4872 (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The final line in the exit list needs a milepost. When the notes say "Continuation beyond wherever", it's because one designation ends at that particular interchange/junction, and another designation starts there.  Here the Connector still continues (albeit only for a tiny bit) before it merges into NJ 87 northbound, so it should have a separate milepost for the terminus.
 * I have added a milepost from the Google reference and changed note to make it more clear that NJ 87 is the northern terminus of the connector. Dough4872 (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relatively speaking, this is extremely minor, but the line for Exit G in the exit list needs a formatting fix (a spaced en dash between the road and the destination).
 * Fixed. Dough4872 (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know if I can be of service or further explain my comments. – Kacie Jane (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied to the above comments. Dough4872 (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are really just way too many inconsistencies and vagueries for this article to be A-class. The exit list seems to indicate that the southbound lanes begin at NJ 87, but the route description isn't clear on the matter.  However, since Exit E to US 30 is a two-way ramp, the southbound lanes should be considered to begin there.  I'm not sure why the note about Ramp D is included on the same line as Exit E on the exit list, since the two exits are a good distance apart. (D should probably have its own line, even if it is entrance only.)  The mileposts for Exit E is wrong – 1.40 is where the connector crosses over Huron Avenue at ramp D.
 * The way the Google map is currently linked, it lists the length as 2.3 miles – if it's being used as a reference, the numbers have to match. (To get 2.5, I used the point where the ramp diverges from the ACE mainline, which is the same starting point the SLD uses.)  Also, this article cannot pass unless the mileposts for the three ramp exits are replaced with mileposts from the actual connector.  The route description still has a sentence at the end about the Exit E ramp that seems to come out of nowhere, and could use a fleshing out in general; it really tries to do too much with a single paragraph.  Specifically, there needs to be more mention of NJ 87's role in serving southbound traffic.  If the purpose of building this connector was to connect the ACE with the casinos and Brigantine, but half the connector is northbound only, how does traffic get back?  (Also, the note for Exit E in the exit list says that southbound traffic must use the Borgata exit, but the note two rows down says that there is no Borgata exit southbound.  There is an exit, it's just technically on NJ 87 rather than the Connector.)
 * While I do want this article to succeed, it seems to be a lot further than I thought it was on my first viewing. I'd really appreciate it if another member of the project would come along and do a full review to see if we can help this article along. – Kacie Jane (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have taken a good look at the article and have tried to sort out the mess concerning the ramps. In both the route description and the exit list, I have made it more clear that NJ 87 provides southbound access for the points served by the northbound-only portion as well as indicating that Exit E marks the beginning of the southbound direction of the connector. I have added a row for Ramp D to show that it is a southbound entrance from NJ 87. Also, I fixed the Google Maps link to show the connector beginning at the ramp from the ACE. Unfortunately, I cannot get the mileposts for the exits along the northbound-only portion of the connector since the SLD has the connector go off to US 30 at Exit E. If anyone can find a way to get mileposts for the exits, I would appreciate it. Dough4872 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, great job. –  T M F 23:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the status of this nomination? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It has three support votes, just need maybe a couple more reviews and Kacie Jane to look over it again. Dough4872 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, at this time I don't believe that Kacie Jane's comments are sufficient to fail this nomination. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.