Talk:North Carolina Turnpike Authority

Fair use rationale for Image:Stop540toll a.gif

Image:Stop540toll a.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I, David McDowell, founder of No Tolls on 540 want to share with NC citizens that there is opposition to the North Carolina Turnpike Authority and specifically due to the "Triangle Expressway" project proposed to be their first toll road(s) in NC makes our view very relevant. We welcome any and all criticism and praise sections as the public deserves the right to read and understand all sides of an issue. Turnpike420 13:12, 14 Aug 2008

Reassessing

This is on the cusp of B-Class. There are a few paragraphs that still lack citations, and I think someone other than the writer should give the article another proofread for grammar and style issues. Notably, I found and corrected a lot of capitalization errors. The word authority when used on its own should not be capitalized. This should also apply to authority board, as I'm sure the actual formal name of the board is different.

I would also like to see more photographs or maps added. There are only two images in the whole article, one of which is the authority's logo and the other the logo of a local lobbyist group. That second logo is not really appropriate to this article. However, maps showing the locations of the NCTA's projects within the state, the logo of their ETC system, photos from the various roads would all be good additions.

I also removed all of the redundant cities from the various newspaper citations. If the name of the city is contained in the name of the paper, it does not need to be added separately. If it is not contained in the paper's name, it is normally added as a form of disambiguation. The citations should also be updated to make sure |format=PDF is present where needed.

Long-term, it would be best if the various citations to laws could be replaced with other sources. The same goes for the various "SPOT ID" sources, but if this isn't possible, the sourcing is ok. There are enough news articles to sustain notability and provide a general corpus of secondary sources. One thing that should be done is to harmonize the article titles. Right now, about half of are in Title Case, and half are in Sentence case; ideally they should all be in the same case. MOS:CT would seem to prefer Title Case, but in either situation, it's a minor typographical change to harmonize the references, regardless of how the original newspaper article or document capitalizes its title/headline. (APA style mandates a similar change, so this is something done in the real world.)

I hope this helps. Imzadi 1979 → 21:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing, but the Criticism section needs to be worked into the rest of the article. I would suggest that its content could be moved into the History section or under the various projects themselves. Giving it its own section causes issues with weight and NPOV. It's just better to integrate the critiques elsewhere, summarizing as necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 21:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Interoperability

In case I get reverted again, I would like to make it clear that this article is titled "North Carolina Turnpike Authority" and the "Interoperability" section refers to two distinct groups: (1) NC Quick Pass holders that would like to use non-NCTA toll roads, and (2) Holders of other ETC passes that would like to use NCTA toll roads.

Another editor expressed an opinion that only group 1 is on topic while group 2 is off topic and should not be included in this article.

I think this is false, as the whole concept of interoperability refers to both possibilities and not specifically to one of them.

TOA The owner of all ☑️ 02:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The Interoperability section is a sub-section of NC Quick Pass, not E-ZPass; thus talking about E-ZPass holders in a section devoted to the NC Quick Pass is irrelevant, especially when a article for E-ZPass exists. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, "NC Quick Pass" does not mean only the holders of that specific pass. It also refers to the pass that is accepted on NC Quick Pass toll roads. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)