Talk:Atlantic City Expressway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleAtlantic City Expressway 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.
October 8, 2008Good article nomineeListed


OK, I see an edit war amongst us. Why is there anything going on about this shunpiking? It really isn't all that encyclopedic and seems more like a promotion of the other roads. However, I've noticed a majority of the toll road articles have their own articles relating to "shunpiking". Why the issue now? EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 15:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Atlantic City Expressway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article is well-written and does a good job of explaining the history and features of the road. I had three small concerns as I read it:

  1. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, so there should not be any information in the lead that does not appear later in the article. The following section is from the lead but does is not found elsewhere in the article: "In 2006, the Atlantic City Expressway counted almost 68 million toll-paying vehicles.[2] The speed limit on the Atlantic City Expressway is 65 miles per hour with "conditions permitting" on the posted sign for most of the route. Call boxes are located every mile on either side.[3]" This should be moved to later in the article, and the second paragraph of the lead should be expanded to make up for this removal.
  2. Is a source available for "However, the proposal was not enacted due to opposition from the state of New Jersey."?
  3. "A few years ago" is vague and informal. If the date is known, it should be used. If not, more encyclopedic phrasing is needed (eg. in the mid-2000s). This will also avoid the problem of dating the prose, as the sentence (as it is currently written) would have to be updated every few years.

I will place the nomination on hold to allow for these conerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or concerns can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I have gone back into the article and made the suggested changes. Dough4872 (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It looks good. The only remaining issue is with the references. They should all have publishers listed. Once they are added, I will promote the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I have fixed the references Dough4872 (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Looks good. Thanks for the quick response. I am promoting the article. If you have a chance, it would be great if you could review an article in return to cut down on the backlog at WP:GAN. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

USRD GA audit[edit]

This article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed.

 Done. Dough4872 (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Updates needed for current article standards[edit]

In looking at the references, there are some issues that should be resolved in the near-term.

  • FN 1 should have a PDF format indication. More information, if possible (like work, author, etc), would be nice.
  • FN 2 would be nicer with more information added to the citation, like FN 1.
  • FN 3 should have a location for the station. If the article is attributed to an author/reporter, add that too.
  • FN 5 is a WP:SPS and should be replaced. Ditto FN 9.
  • There's WP:OVERLINKing galore. The first time a publisher/source is mentioned is enough for linking; the remainder should be delinked.
  • Press releases (if I missed some) should ideally be cited using {{cite press release}} instead of {{cite web}}.
  • The dates should be consistent, and I personally recommend switching them over to "Month DD, YYYY" format.
  • FN 21 needs a location since the paper name doesn't include the city of origin.
  • FN 26 probably should be using {{cite map}}.

I'd recommend merging the first and last rows of the exit list into the second and second-to-last rows, and then converting it all over to the templates. The toll plazas should have mileages listed. (If converted to the templates, there will be a blank cell to fill anyways.) The {{jcttop}} template doesn't link the word "Exit". If the first and last rows are retained, the don't contain full sentences, so the periods need to be removed.

Last item, but the infobox should get a caption for the map. I haven't looked over the prose, but I did notice those items after I made some fixes to the photos and a few references. Imzadi 1979  03:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of the footnote issues. There are still two SPSs in use. If they are not replaced in a timely fashion, this article can be delisted as a Good Article. Imzadi 1979  11:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The SPSs have been removed. Dough4872 15:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting Costs[edit]

The Introduction states that the expressway cost 39 million to build, but the body of the article states 48 million.

At least one of those figures must be wrong. (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Dough4872 15:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)