Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/New Jersey Route 55

< Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads‎ | Assessment‎ | A-Class review
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Successful –Juliancolton | Talk 01:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Route 55 edit

Toolbox

New Jersey Route 55 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: A well-written GA that has a lot of information and has the potential to go farther.
Nominated by: ---Dough4872 18:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 22:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Tentative oppose: decent overall, but it needs work. The route description strikes me as quite boring and dry. Turn-by-turn, intersection-by-intersection info is acceptable, but the prose should be more than a rehash of an atlas. Anything to make it more interesting and accessible would be good, since this section should describe the route as a whole, not explain every last minor detail. Also, there are some pretty random and poorly-sourced facts like The CR 555 exit provides access to the WheatonArts and the Creative Glass Center of America. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you give me a specific list of what sentences need to be fixed in the route description and how I should go about fixing them in order to make improvements to the article? In order to make the route description interesting, I tried adding information about attractions that can be accessed from Route 55, leading to sentences like The CR 555 exit provides access to the WheatonArts and the Creative Glass Center of America. Is there a better way sentences like this can be worded? ---Dough4872 03:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess my concerns aren't really actionable, so I've stricken my oppose –Juliancolton | Talk 02:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, no map. --Rschen7754 21:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map I cannot really help as MTF has gone dead and there is a large backlog. I will place a request for a map. ---Dough4872 21:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article has a map now. ---Dough4872 03:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Imzadi1979
Review by Imzadi1979
  1. I added the Toolbox from FAC to the top of the nomination. (It won't transclude to the main ACR page, just like it doesn't at FAC). Using those tools, there's ALT text missing for the map. It will need to be added using the |map_alt= parameter in the infobox.
    1. Added ALT text. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ref 30 is formated "pp. pages 3, 7" when it should be just "pp. 3, 7". Ref 37 has two formats for dates. Personally, now that dates are unlinked, I've switched to full Month Day, Year format from ISO, but really consistency is the key. Otherwise, reference formatting is good.
    1. Fixed ref 30 and 37. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Image Check: Licensing checks out on all of them.
  4. Prose review — I'll be doing this in chunks. Where I've directly quote text from the article, bold is suggested additions and strike through is suggested deletions.
    1. The first sentence is a bit awkwardly constructed. I think it needs a "that is" inserted before "built". That might be more of a stylistic preference though.
      1. Fixed. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Another stylistic preference revolves around the density of the links in the beginning of the lead. I'd redo it as: "Also known as the Veteran's Memorial Highway, it runs 40.54 mi (65.24 km) from an intersection with Route 47 (Delsea Drive) in Port Elizabeth (within Maurice River Township in Cumberland County) north to an interchange with Route 42 in Deptford Township, Gloucester County."
      1. Fixed as suggested. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    3. The last sentence in the first paragraph mentions Philadelphia twice. Can it be reworded?
      1. Changed to Delaware Valley as that is term that refers to the Philadelphia area. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    4. I would combine the last two sentences of the first RD paragraph can be combined as: "The route passes to the east of WheatonArts and the Creative Glass Center of America before turning northwest and crossing into Vineland, where it interchanges with CR 555.,[1][2] The CR 555 an exit that provides access to the WheatonArts and the Creative Glass Center of America attractions.[3]
      1. Reworded. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    5. The first three paragraphs of the RD all start with Route 55. Maybe that can be changed to give us a little variety?
      1. Changed instance in second paragraph. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    6. In a similar vein, so many sentences of the second paragraph all start with "Here", "From here". That should be changed up a bit.
      1. Changed wording. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    7. "Past the Garden Road interchange, Route 55 continues through a mix of farmland and woodland, passing to the east of Rudys Airport.[2]"
      1. Don't know how I missed that. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    8. There are instances where there is a space between the punctuation and the reference. I can run the article through AWB at some point, if desired, and it will make all sorts of these minor MOS fixes.
      1. Fixed a few instances. An AWB run wouldn't hurt to find any I may have missed. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    9. "These two proposed freeways would become planned as toll roads and in 1962, the New Jersey Expressway Authority Act was signed into law, creating the New Jersey Expressway Authority that was to manage both the Atlantic City Expressway and the Cape May Expressway.[12]* While the Atlantic City Expressway was completed by the authority in 1965, the Cape May Expressway was turned over to the state at this time.[13][14] At this time, the The Cape May Expressway became known as was designated Route 55 and was legislated to run from US 130 in Westville to US 9 near Cape May Court House.[14] This proposed freeway was to be completed by 1975 and was projected to cost $90 million with a completion date of 1975.[15]" *Consider changing that to Atlantic City and Cape May expressways.
      1. Fixed as suggested. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    10. "The Several incidents that happened to construction workers during construction included one a construction worker being ran run over by an asphalt truck, another being blown off a bridge, and a van carrying five construction workers randomly erupting into flames.[20]"
      1. Fixed as suggested. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    11. "Meanwhile, During the burial ground litigation and construction accidents, the portion of freeway south of Route 47 in Maurice River Township had yet to be was not yet built. In 1972, it was called for this freeway to head southeast from its current terminus to the Garden State Parkway in Middle Township in order to provide adequate access to the Cape May Peninsula. the XXX wanted to provide adequate access to the Cape May Peninsula by extending the freeway southeast from the current terminus to meet the Garden State Parkway in Middle Township.[21]" The current sentence doesn't say who wanted to improve the access, which is a big omission from this section of information.
      1. Reworded and indicated NJDOT wanted to extend freeway. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    12. "In 1975, the New Jersey Department of Transportation conducted an environmental study on this proposal, which was to projected cost $155 million and be finished by 1995. However, NJDOT decided not to construct the route when they it was determined this freeway would cause destruction to several wetlands and the Pine Barrens, and the NJDOT decided not to construct the route.[22] "
      1. Fixed as suggested. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    13. There is a lot of repetition of the word "however" in the History section. Further copy editing should be explored to correct this.
      1. Removed a couple of instances of however. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    14. A lot of sentences in the History and Future sections should be rewritten to flip the order of the clauses. As in the example I gave in 4.12, the wording is awkward, and better served by reordering the sentence construction. Some parts weasel out of giving all the information this way by saying "it is to be" done. Tell us who wants what done. The information is good, but the presentation needs some improvement.
      1. Can you elaborate on how sentences have awkward wording and provide a couple of more examples? ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. What purpose does the External link "Page 3 indicates interest in Route 55 Extension" serve? I don't think this is a high-quality link for the article to have, unless it serves a purpose as a source.
    1. Removed external link. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My overall impression of the article is that it is well-researched, the quality of the information provided is high, the photos and map add to the article as well. The prose needs editing though to bring the quality up. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some copyediting to address my remaining concerns with the article. The author will need to verify that I haven't altered what is being referenced in one case in the Future section. Additionally, I have tagged a sentence that needs some clarification. Once that's done, I'll be able to support this article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the Future section and there were no alterations to the content. In addition, I made some rewordings in the history to remove the unclear item. ---Dough4872 04:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – now supporting promotion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from – TMF 07:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary review by TMF

A full prose review will follow at some point. In the meantime, here's what I saw at first glance:

  • Do both alternate names in the infobox apply to NJ 55?
    • Yes, the first is an official ceremonial name while the second is the name the route was originally planned as. ---Dough4872 04:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formed/completion dates in the infobox are unsourced.
  • At least two pictures have fixed sizes.
  • The date formatting used in the references is inconsistent. Please choose one or the other and use only that format for all dates in the references. I personally prefer American (M D, Y).
    • Made formatting consistient. ---Dough4872 04:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Refs 24, 27, and 32 still have ISO dates. – TMF 15:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead, route description, history, and future sections all have long paragraphs.
  • The $90 million figure in the history needs an inflation conversion.
    • Added inflation conversion there and in other places. ---Dough4872 04:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 1 indicates that the SLD was published in 2009, but the given access date is from 2007.
    • Fixed date to access at current date. ---Dough4872 04:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exit 56A/B: is the given milepost ("56.4") an approximation or a precision error ("56.40")?
    • Added more precise milepost. ---Dough4872 04:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. – TMF 19:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. ---Dough4872 04:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dave (talk)

Lead

  • I'm not convinced that Veteran's Memorial Highway should be bolded, it is a common name for a highway and the article for Veteran's Memorial is a disambiguation page, not a redirect to this article. Might want to get a second opinion on that.
  • feared - IMO that's a little too strong of word for an encyclopedia.
  • I'd minimize the future content in the lead. Two reasons- one it's temporary and will have to be changed eventually. Two, there's not really space to explain the initialism PATCO, which needs to be done on first mention.
    • Cut down to one sentence in the lead. ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Route description:

  • attractions in Millville - I'd expand, what attractions? IMO the attractions are more interesting than the turn-by-turn route description.
    • Indicated attraction accessed from exit. ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • "at this time." doesn't sound right, maybe "that same year" or "about this time" maybe?
    • Changed to "about this time". ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that was not successful." Need to clarify, what was not successful, the route or the lawsuits?
    • Clarified by saying "unsuccessful lawsuits". ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bad fate fell upon many construction workers" That's pretty gutsy to say in the encyclopedia. I didn't even say that in the US-666 article. I'd maybe say "a couple of unfortunate incidents happened after the lawsuit". In addition the examples don't support "many" as they list 6 workers.
  • Again the initialism PATCO needs to be explained on first mention. Also having the words "speedline" and "rail line" right next to each other is a little awkward.
    • Indicated what PATCO means and removed redundant "speedline rail line". ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was never built" -> "plans were cancelled" or "to date has not been built" Never say Never =-)
    • Changed to "plans were cancelled". ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.0 mile (1.6 km); with the advent of cell phones the usage of these call boxes became extremely limited." Two issues, fix the convert template, or manually do the conversion 1.0 mile is a little rough, maybe Every mile (about 1.6 km)... Also, are you sure the call boxes predate the advent of Cell phones? Cell phones have been around for a long time (1960's anyways), they just didn't get cheap enough for the masses until 20 years ago or so. In California, the call boxes WERE (and are) cell phones, just solar powered, permanently mounted ones.
    • Fixed conversion and reworded to indicate increasing popularity of cellphones led to the demise of the call boxes. ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future

  • You have the word still in 3 back to back sentences.
  • "In his proposal, he announced" is wordy, could eliminate one of those clauses.

Exit list

  • The note for mp 60.54 is curious. Wouldn't that mean that Exit 56A is signed "To 42 South"? If so wouldn't that be the more elegant way of saying that instead of "all traffic must use NJ41 to access NJ42 South"?
    • The exit 56 signage does not indicate NJ 42 at all, I have removed the note as it does look tacky and there are other ways to access NJ 42 south (like exit 58). ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note for exit 35, IMO, should read "Southbound signed as exits 35A (east)...." This avoids the words west and southbound from being next to each other.

Pretty good, no problem supporting once these issues are resolved. Dave (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With these changes I can now support the promotion of this article. I would like to go on record that I agree with Jullian in that I also am not a fan of the turn-by-turn route description. Were I writing this the route description would be shorter. However, you've got enough content interspersed in the route description that is not turn-by-turn that I made it through. I also recognize that everybody has a different style and I imagine there are fans of the turn-by-turn style. Dave (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Crap, I just noticed something, you need to downcase the ALL CAPS in source 24, per WP:ALLCAPS. I'll still support, AGF that this will be fixed. Dave (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the all caps from reference, thanks for catching. ---Dough4872 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the new requirements at WP:RJL, please change # in the table header of the junction list to "Exit". --Rschen7754 07:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from – TMF 01:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second review by TMF
  • Infobox:
    • "Veteran's Memorial Highway" - Veteran's or Veterans? A Google News and web search both seem to indicate that the latter is the correct name.
      • I actually believe the latter is also how it appears on signs. Changed. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • De-link the second instance of Millville (Route 47).
  • Lead:
    • Veteran's again.
    • "In 1962, the New Jersey Expressway Authority was created to build the Cape May Expressway along with the Atlantic City Expressway to Atlantic City." - I would consider dropping "to Atlantic City" here as to me it makes it seem like both highways were supposed to end in Atlantic City. Instead, I would simplify the sentence to read "... created to build the Cape May Expressway and the Atlantic City Expressway."
      • Removed. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd personally use "and" instead of "along with" here as suggested above. The latter works too, but IMO it doesn't flow as well as the former would. – TMF 04:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Meanwhile, the portion south of Route 47 in Port Elizabeth to the Garden State Parkway in Middle Township was canceled in 1975 due to anticipated environmental impact." - the back end of the sentence ("due" onward) seems a bit off. Adding a "the" in between due and to makes it a bit better, but the sentence still ends in an awkward fashion. I suggest adding a short phrase to it to close the thought properly, such as "... impact that the highway would have" or such.
      • Reworded. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, the back end is good now but now the front end is a bit off. "Meanwhile, the portion between Route 47 in Port Elizabeth and the Garden State Parkway in Middle Township was canceled ..." flows better in my mind. – TMF 04:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Plans have resurfaced for a southern extension of Route 55 due to the need to reduce traffic jams on Route 47 in the summer months and provide an adequate evacuation route for the Cape May Peninsula." - I don't really like how the first two-thirds of this sentence is phrased. "due to the need to reduce traffic jams on Route 47" is excessively wordy, but I can't think of an alternative that works with the existing first third of the sentence. Maybe "However, traffic jams on Route 47 during the summer months and the lack of an adequate evacuation route for the Cape May Peninsula have led officials to reexamine the possibility of extending Route 55 southward to <wherever's being discussed, which isn't clear from the article>.", assuming that's all backed up by sources. I assume the ST of the studied extension is Cape May, but like I said it's not explicitly clear, at least not to anyone that doesn't know what's 20 miles from the end of current Route 55.
      • Reworded as suggested and indicated where highway is to be extended to. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD:
    • Section (sec) 1, paragraph (par) 3, sentence (sen) 1: wikilink Conrail SAO.
    • Sec 2, par 1, sen 1: there should be a comma after "Gloucester County".
    • Sec 2, par 2, sen 2: "CR 538" is broken onto two lines on my layout, which tells me this article is missing some non-breaking spaces. A quick scan of the article's source code tells me that it doesn't have any.
      • Added nbsp at appropriate places. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's still a lot of places where non-breaking spaces should be used but aren't. Most of the ones I found were instances of "Route 55". – TMF 04:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added more nbsp. ---Dough4872 17:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's a bit too many now (there doesn't need to be any non-breaking spaces in the phrase "In the 1970s", for example) but I suppose too many nbsp is preferable to too few. – TMF 01:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • History:
    • Par 2, sen 3: "with a completion date of 1975" sounds strange. Maybe "and be completed in 1975".
    • Par 3, sen 3: "mid 1970s" needs a hyphen.
    • Par 4, sen 3: "unfortunate" - POV? Additionally, I would consider merging sentences three and four to reduce redundancy. (Something like "After the lawsuits, there were several accidents involving construction workers at work on Route 55, such as a construction worker ...")
      • Merged sentences and remove POV word. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Par 5, sen 4: "When a feasibility study was conducted to see if the extension of Route 55 could be built, plans resurfaced for a southern extension in 1993" - this doesn't seem right. Wouldn't plans to extend the road precede the conducting of studies?
      • Flipped order of sentence. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Future
    • Par 2, sen 3: "It is also anticipated that the extension of Route 55 will be tolled" - I would use "would be tolled" here since this is all just a proposal and nothing's set in stone.
    • Par 2, sen 6: "A southern extension of Route 55 may also utilize portions of Route 47 and Route 347 upgraded to freeway standard." - I don't quite get what this sentence is saying. Would parts of 47 and 347 be upgraded to freeways that would then become part of 55?
      • Yes, that is what the sentence is trying to convey. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It needs to be reworded then as the current wording would likely confuse most readers. – TMF 04:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reworded. ---Dough4872 17:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, the point that the sentence is trying to make is clear now, but the wording of it leaves a bit to be desired. "upgraded to freeway standard" seems off, for one. I'd suggest making standard "standards", but I've never heard of anyone use the term "freeway standards". The whole sentence needs a top-to-bottom copyedit. – TMF 01:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other
    • Refs: some (all?) uses of {{cite news}} have the newspaper name in the publisher parameter and italicized. The name of the paper should be in the newspaper parameter, which automatically italicizes the name of the paper.
    • Moar refs: Ref 36 seems to be a press release; there's a {{cite press release}} for those. I don't know if any other references are press releases; I only checked out #36 on a whim.
    • Ref 14: check to see if this is the standard notation for citing a New Jersey state law. I'm no law buff, so I don't know if this is right or not. Either way, a space needs to be added to "Section1".
      • Fixed to proper format. In addition, I found a link to the text of the law. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alt text is OK. Given the current state that WP:ALT is in right now, I'm not sure how much alt text matters at this time anyway. – TMF 07:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per a recent change to MOS:RJL, the "Exit" header in the exit list should be delinked. – TMF 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Initially, I had this unlinked but added the link after seeing it in other articles with the new heading. Changed. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for looking over the article again, I have replied to the above. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Resolved issues have been struck; comments have been left for issues not yet resolved. – TMF 04:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all issues resolved. – TMF 01:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/New_Jersey_Route_55&oldid=1142556373"