Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pennsylvania Turnpike/archive1
Pennsylvania Turnpike
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Withdrawn over concerns that this was becoming a peer review and that the review really needed to be restarted. No prejudice to a renomination once outstanding issues are addressed. --Rschen7754 22:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
Pennsylvania Turnpike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: The Pennsylvania Turnpike is the first long-distance limited-access road in the United States that ultimately led to the creation of the Interstate Highway System. This article is well-researched and I think it can eventually become a FA.
- Nominated by: Dough4872 22:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First comment occurred: 00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
editResolved issues
|
---|
|
- Oppose for now, based on the issues Fredddie has been finding. Will reconsider once his and my reviews are done and issues are addressed. --Rschen7754 05:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Holding for now pending resolution of Mitchazenia's issues. --Rschen7754 18:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Imzadi1979
editUnless noted otherwise, the captions are ok.
- File:Pennsylvania Turnpike logo.svg should have its description page updated. Since the design is public domain, Vishwin60 never had any rights to release. At worst, the description is deceptive on that point.
- Removed unneeded licensing tags. Dough4872 18:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pennsylvania Turnpike map.png should have the GIS source(s) used to create the map added. The caption for the map is not a complete sentence and should not have terminal punctuation (aka a period) in that case.
- Fixed image caption. Contacted O on obtaining a source for GIS data. Dough4872 18:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Source for GIS data added. Dough4872 03:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed image caption. Contacted O on obtaining a source for GIS data. Dough4872 18:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Interstate shields at the bottom of the infobox should be replaced with text. If the concern is that the shields would not be used otherwise, then {{infobox road small}} should be used in the article to display them appropriately.
- Would you like it if I included IRS in the Delaware River Extension section for I-276 and in the History section for I-280? I think including the mini infoboxes look tacky and the shields better presented in the infobox browse. Dough4872 18:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is that you have two different styles, the 1957 variation and the current at 20px in height. One is three digits wide (25px) and the other is only 2 digits wide (20px), with the difference between state name and "neutered" shields. I know what the difference is suppose to be, but non-roadgeeks won't at that size. Also, icons are not a substitute for text; only text is a substitute for text. The icons either need text added next to them, or they need to be replaced by the appropriate text only. I still think that you should insert an IRS in the body of the article for each designation to offer the location/length/year(s) as appropriate for those designations. Imzadi 1979 → 00:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added mini-infoboxes and removed shields from browse in infobox. Dough4872 01:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is that you have two different styles, the 1957 variation and the current at 20px in height. One is three digits wide (25px) and the other is only 2 digits wide (20px), with the difference between state name and "neutered" shields. I know what the difference is suppose to be, but non-roadgeeks won't at that size. Also, icons are not a substitute for text; only text is a substitute for text. The icons either need text added next to them, or they need to be replaced by the appropriate text only. I still think that you should insert an IRS in the body of the article for each designation to offer the location/length/year(s) as appropriate for those designations. Imzadi 1979 → 00:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like it if I included IRS in the Delaware River Extension section for I-276 and in the History section for I-280? I think including the mini infoboxes look tacky and the shields better presented in the infobox browse. Dough4872 18:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pennsylvania Turnpike westbound.jpg is GFDL, CC-BY 2.5, or CC-BY-SA 3.0.
- File:Allegheny Mountain Tunnel West Portal I76 Dscn7191.jpg is GFDL, CC-BY 2.5, or CC-BY-SA 3.0.
- File:Pennsylvania Turnpike westbound at US 222 exit.jpg is CC-BY-SA 2.0 by way of Flickr.
- File:PA TPK WB Whitemarsh Township.JPG released by nominator to PD.
- File:Paturnpiketicket.jpg has a PD photo, but I wonder if the ticket itself might attract a copyright. I doubt that it does, and the caption checks out. (It has full sentences, so the periods are correct.)
- File:PennaPike toll plaza.jpg is CC-BY-SA 3.0 and CC-BY-SA 2.5.
- File:PA TPK Willow Grove tollbooth.JPG is PD by nominator.
- File:Sideling Hill Plaza jeh.JPG is PD by another wikimedian.
- File:Pennsylvania Turnpike 70 mph 1942.jpg is PD as a work of the federal government.
- File:Rays Hill Tunnel - Andrew Carnegie - 1880s.jpg was created in the 1880s, but we need proof that it was published before 1923 for the license tag applied to be accurate. The source also needs to specific what print source was used to obtain this photo. In any case, that doesn't mean this photo isn't PD, just that we need to clarify why/how better.
- Mitchazenia scanned the photo from a copy Mitchell Dakelman (one of the authors of the Images of America book) had. However, nothing was said on whether this photo was published before 1923. I believe the photo itself is from the Pennsylvania State Archives. Dough4872 19:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the photo for now until the copyright can be verified. Dough4872 02:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mitchazenia scanned the photo from a copy Mitchell Dakelman (one of the authors of the Images of America book) had. However, nothing was said on whether this photo was published before 1923. I believe the photo itself is from the Pennsylvania State Archives. Dough4872 19:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pennsylvania Turnpike in 1942.jpg is another photo that's PD because it is a work of the federal government.
- File:Pennsylvania Turnpike 1942 LOC.jpg is another photo that's PD because if it is a work of the federal government, however the FDP doesn't actually state this. I would suggest that {{information}} be used with full details filled in.
- Added information template. Dough4872 19:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Laurel Hill Tunnel 1942.jpg is more PD-USgov.
- File:Rays Hill Tunnel at night 1942.jpg is another PD-USgov.
- File:Blue Mountain Tunnel viewed from Kittatinny Mountain Tunnel 1942.jpg is more PD-US-gov.
- File:Pennsylvania Turnpike westbound Lebanon County.jpg is CC-BY-SA 2.0 via Flickr.
- File:Pennsylvania Turnpike eastbound at Homewood Viaduct.jpg is CC-BY-SA 2.0 via Flickr.
- File:Delaware River Turnpike Toll Bridge.jpg is PD by a wikimedian; caption should not have a space en dash in the bridge name. I would suggest that the file size be set by adding
|upgright
since this is a portrait-oriented photo. (This would reduce the overall width because of the extra height involved.) - File:Sideling Hill Tunnel approach.jpg is PD by a wikimedian; FDP should be checked for categories.
- File:Abandoned Turnpike.jpg is PD by a wikimedian.
- File:PA TPK WB 0.5 mi to Norristown.JPG is PD by the nominator.
- File:PA TPK Virginia Drive slip ramp.JPG is PD by the nominator.
Just as a comment, I did upload File:St. John's Church Pennsylvania Turnpike.jpg, which is a photo I had of the church next to the turnpike. This photo may be a possibility to help illustrate that part of the RD. Imzadi 1979 → 03:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Fredddie
editOK, I moved my section down so the other sections don't get lost. After nearly 2 weeks of reviewing, I have finally completed my review. There is some good news and some bad news.
First the good news. You clearly want this article to go to FAC. With the right amount of elbow grease I think it could. Speaking on behalf of the rest of the project (I can because others have said this on IRC), we want this article to become a Featured Article. This would be our first collaborative FA as a project.
Now the bad news. It needs a lot of work. This might sound mean, but this is another instance of a Good Article not being a good article. In all, I found 175 points that need work; some of them have more than one issue to work on. My review is over 22Kb of text. To save yours and my sanity, I won't paste it all at once.
Just a few formatting explanations first. I used two templates that you see on MoS pages, {{!xt}}
and {{xt}}
, and used them in a similar form. Your original text uses !xt while what I think you should say instead uses xt.
Here we go. –Fredddie™ 15:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that you can discuss the changes I'm suggesting. Since the goal of this review is twofold, 1) to get this article to and through FAC and 2) to make you a better writer, I expect something more than I don't like it. If you don't necessarily agree with something I would like to see or you need further explanation as to why I'm suggesting something, say so. –Fredddie™ 04:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First review from Fredddie
|
---|
These are the two biggest issues I found in the article.
OK, looks good so far. Continuing with the review. –Fredddie™ 01:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, we get to the meat and potatoes of the review. –Fredddie™ 04:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the mini-lead and then we'll move on to the next section. –Fredddie™ 04:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This, being the biggest section, had the most problems. –Fredddie™ 02:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to issues in this section. –Fredddie™ 04:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the remaining points are so few and the above is so long, I figure I might as well post the rest of it. –Fredddie™ 03:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I am ending my review early just so other people can jump in and not feel like their review is getting lost. I do plan on doing a second pass once everyone else is done. Right now, though, I am leaning oppose. There have been far too many times where I have asked for something, a weak change or reply was made, and I have had to clarify what I thought was a clear instruction. And then the change still wasn't made. –Fredddie™ 12:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this review needs 3 more supports, the completion of Imzadi1979's image review, and a spotcheck for promotion. --Rschen7754 09:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Random thoughts by Mitchazenia
edit- Need to split up paragraphs something fierce. These paragraphs are humongous and are a prevalent issue through the entire article. My suggestion is what I do, no more than 6–7 lines in the editing window per paragraph. This includes all wikilinks, but not references.
- Split several paragraphs. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, there are still a ton of splittings that still need to be done. I just want to clarify, on my screen, it's a 90x9099 (or whatever the max is) editing window with 6–7 lines. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Split more paragraphs. Dough4872 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, there are still a ton of splittings that still need to be done. I just want to clarify, on my screen, it's a 90x9099 (or whatever the max is) editing window with 6–7 lines. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Split several paragraphs. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tunnels subsection should be necessary here. These tunnels are a significant feature of the Turnpike and deserve their own subsection.
- This could be an idea we can go with. However, we can possibly also incorporate major river bridges too as they are also important structures along the turnpike. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You get my point. It should exist. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Created subsection. Dough4872 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You get my point. It should exist. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This could be an idea we can go with. However, we can possibly also incorporate major river bridges too as they are also important structures along the turnpike. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead could use some more thoroughness than this and needs to have smaller paragraphs.
- The lead is supposed to provide a basic summary of the article, so excess detail is not needed there. Split paragraphs in lead. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What changes? I don't know where you changed things. There's more bloated paragraphs now than split. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Split the paragraphs up. Dough4872 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What changes? I don't know where you changed things. There's more bloated paragraphs now than split. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is supposed to provide a basic summary of the article, so excess detail is not needed there. Split paragraphs in lead. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Location consistency in infobox please. You jump from near to in, and using different municipality levels.
- I use the common location for identifying the interchange, which is usually a nearby city/borough or unincorporated municipality. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a preference to drop the unincorporated municipalities. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer to keep the unincorporated municipalities as they are more known to people. I would rather say the east end of the I-76 concurrency is near Valley Forge than in Upper Merion Township as the former location's name is more well known to motorists. Dough4872 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a preference to drop the unincorporated municipalities. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I use the common location for identifying the interchange, which is usually a nearby city/borough or unincorporated municipality. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Expansion of emergency systems wouldn't hurt. Right now it's a lone paragraph that also needs some sentences merged to make sense and not have awkward cutoffs. Radio broadcasts also suffer from the same shrimpiness problem. I would look into merging them and expanding on it considering they are similar.
- I would not be opposed to combining the emergency systems and radio broadcasts sections as they are both short. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My condition is that you expand on them. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded and merged. Dough4872 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My condition is that you expand on them. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be opposed to combining the emergency systems and radio broadcasts sections as they are both short. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exit 352: Is STREET ROAD the actual interchange name. I know from personal experience the exit has no name.
- The turnpike lists Street Road as the exit name in the toll calculator and toll book. It has been practice on new signage for the slip ramps to not include the formal interchange name. Despite this, we should continue to include the name indicated in the toll calculator and toll book. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Source should be next to the name then.Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added source. Dough4872 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Source should be next to the name then.Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The turnpike lists Street Road as the exit name in the toll calculator and toll book. It has been practice on new signage for the slip ramps to not include the formal interchange name. Despite this, we should continue to include the name indicated in the toll calculator and toll book. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All the Dakelman sources if possible should have Neil Schorr's name on it.
- I just included Dakelman in the footnotes since he is the first author listed. I have seen other example of footnotes for books with multiple authors that only listed the first author. However, I would not be opposed to changing the footnotes to say "Dakelman and Schorr". Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They worked equally, and I am basing on personal knowledge of one of the two authors, on the book.Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed footnotes to read "Dakelman and Schorr". Dough4872 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They worked equally, and I am basing on personal knowledge of one of the two authors, on the book.Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just included Dakelman in the footnotes since he is the first author listed. I have seen other example of footnotes for books with multiple authors that only listed the first author. However, I would not be opposed to changing the footnotes to say "Dakelman and Schorr". Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- New York Times citation formatting is very inconsistent. Please keep to one format (see Refs 207 and 208 as an example of the problem.)
- The reason for the formatting inconsistencies is that the template generates the date in a different place depending on whether or not there is an author for the article. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Location, location, location. There is no consistency here whatsoever when it comes to use of locations in citations.
- The infobox and route description use location based on proximity to incorporated towns and unincorporated places to give people an idea with familiar place names. The exit list uses cities, boroughs, and townships as it is standard to use the exact municipality here. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what I meant. I want the citations consistent, not use throughout the article. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the locations in citations, newspaper articles only have a location specified if the location is not in the title of the newspaper. Otherwise I felt it was redundant to have the location specified if it was already mentioned in the newspaper title. Dough4872 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what I meant. I want the citations consistent, not use throughout the article. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The infobox and route description use location based on proximity to incorporated towns and unincorporated places to give people an idea with familiar place names. The exit list uses cities, boroughs, and townships as it is standard to use the exact municipality here. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the PennDOT wikilink in Citation 350? It should be in Citation 2.
- Fixed. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check for consistency of this Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Checked. Dough4872 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check for consistency of this Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is citation 3 media-wise? (book, pamphet, what?)
- Book. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Make sure that's noted. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Book. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is optional, but I'd make this 3 columns of a reference list. 2 columns of 175 is a bit much.
- Exit 25A became exit 20? What is this?
- Exit 20 is based on the milepost on I-476 since Mid-County is a mainline toll plaza on I-476. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A section could be considered on EZ-Pass ramps considering Exit 320 opened last week.
- Split slip ramps into new section. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand on the opening please. How many people were there? Any politicians?
- As mentioned, there was not a formal ribbon cutting or ceremony as the road opened on short notice. Basically all that happened was motorists lined up to enter the new road at midnight. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was the concrete failing in 1954? What led up to this?
- I would move around design and construction considering I feel they read backwards.
- Switched order. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any update on the St. John's stairs?
- Nope, the stairs still exist. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to what? The article writes without update. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not seen any newspaper articles about the steps being removed since the newspaper article was published. Dough4872 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added updated source on removal of steps. Dough4872 03:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not seen any newspaper articles about the steps being removed since the newspaper article was published. Dough4872 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to what? The article writes without update. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, the stairs still exist. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why 3di mileposts in the infobox? Nowhere else in PA do we use this.
- The GIS data for Pennsylvania can get mileposts out to several decimal places. I figured to go out to 3 since that is a good standard used in other states. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeat, we've never done that anywhere else in PA. The most is 1 or 2di, which is what should be a general rule for every other article in PA (mainly 2di as a preference). Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Narrowed down to 2di. Dough4872 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeat, we've never done that anywhere else in PA. The most is 1 or 2di, which is what should be a general rule for every other article in PA (mainly 2di as a preference). Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The GIS data for Pennsylvania can get mileposts out to several decimal places. I figured to go out to 3 since that is a good standard used in other states. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would please check for WP:OVERLINK as a precaution using the general rule that one use after the first to guide the reader is your basis.
- I tried to avoid mentioning links more than once in the article. In Fredddie's review, I removed several redundant wikilinks in the exit list. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as it might not be the best thing for the article, an "In popular culture" section might be useful here.
- I think this section would be too trivial for the article. These sections are frowned upon in other road articles. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would look into it anyway. There is stuff talking about it. This isn't just a two lane road. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I find this comment quite ridiculous. --Rschen7754 21:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this section would be too trivial for the article. These sections are frowned upon in other road articles. Dough4872 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just some random thoughts for now. Will have more later. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 05:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing on:
- What were the initial projections for revenue in 1940?
- A little more specific on the Philadelphia extension's groundbreaking locale. York County is rather broad.
- The source only says York County. However, the turnpike passes through only Fairview Township in York County. Dough4872 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Groundbreaking for the Gateway–Irwin section needs expansion please.
- I've never heard of Edgely, PA, and I've been through there a lot, I'd highly suggest clarifying it's location.
- I would expand on design (mathematics and schematics) of the tunnel entranceways. They went through some radical revamps in the 1960s.
- New Stanton is missing cost, what type of interchange it was and is (not grade-separated mind you.)
- How significant (in numbers) were the difference with the I-80 opening?
- How was the anniversary noted? $300,000 is very vague.
- Cost for the Irwin–Carlisle reconstruction?
- I-79 interchange design? Cost?
- What were the costs on the original decking of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel changes in 2001?
- How is it deteriorating? Also the sentence this is attached to reads rather awkwardly.
- Why was the widening pushed back a year?
- I would make sure that the exit numbers are mentioned in the slip ramps section.
- Added exit numbers. Dough4872 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weren't services areas demolished for the new interchange or is that area I see on I-276 west just openings for the interchange construction?
- Clarification, what happened to those service areas?Mitch32(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 19:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Neshaminy service plazas were closed and demolished to allow for the Street Road slip ramp to be built along with widening the roadway to six lanes. This is mentioned in the service plaza section. Dough4872 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification, what happened to those service areas?Mitch32(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 19:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any updates on the Norristown ramps?
- Nope. Dough4872 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to whom? Did you look? Mitch32(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 19:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There have not been any newspaper articles that have mentioned the project since then and the project site has no updates since then. Dough4872 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to whom? Did you look? Mitch32(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 19:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Dough4872 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused on what you mean above by why Exit 20 is present at 476. Shouldn't this be using 276's numbering?
- Exit 20 is the Mid-County toll plaza, which serves as both an exit off the mainline turnpike in addition to being a mainline toll plaza along the Northeast Extension. As it is located along the mainline of I-476, the toll plaza's number is based on the mileposts from that road, even in signage along the mainline turnpike. Dough4872 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is signage for Exit 359 on the Exit 358 ramps heading towards the bridge. What does Exit 359 represent and why is it not covered in here?
- Exit 359 is the number for the Delaware River Bridge toll plaza along the mainline turnpike. The exit number is not mentioned in the exit list since it is not an exit per se. Dough4872 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotta be mentioned somewhere. Mitch32(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 19:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Exit 359 is the number for the Delaware River Bridge toll plaza along the mainline turnpike. The exit number is not mentioned in the exit list since it is not an exit per se. Dough4872 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I will find more. But here's more to handle. Also read above. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: it's clear that there is a strong consensus against promotion. ACR is not a peer review, and I have to wonder about the stability of the article when this many changes are happening to it that are related to comprehensiveness. I also have to wonder about the validity of any review that was conducted before such a substantial rewrite. Speaking for myself, I would feel uncomfortable ever supporting any article that was torn apart at the ACR stage like this article is; it's fairly easy for accidental errors to slip in with just a bunch of prose corrections, as I found out with my CA 56 ACR. I am also concerned with nominator's reluctance to work on the article; we are fairly understanding when real life gets in the way (such as the slowdown due to the holidays); however, that does not seem to be the case here. We expect nominators (and reviewers) to respond in a timely manner out of fairness to the nominators of other articles, and there is a lack of respect for that here.
Therefore, I'm proposing an early closure of this review, without prejudice for a renomination once the above issues are addressed. Speaking with my USRD "founder" hat on, I want to personally support every USRD editor who wants to get their first FA, and I know that other USRD editors feel this way. Speaking with my USRD "featured article writer" hat on, I don't think that this is a good choice for a writer's first FA, due to the broadness and complexity of the topic. I would recommend starting with a less complex road, bringing it through ACR and FA, repeating a few times, and then coming back to this. If there are no substantial objections I propose closing this on Friday sometime. --Rschen7754 06:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no objections from me. –Fredddie™ 07:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would still like this review to remain open as I plan on returning to this article once I get back up to school later this month. Dough4872 22:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but my comments about stability still stand. --Rschen7754 08:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To add to this, you can still work on the comments with the ACR closed. After addressing all of Mitchazenia's comments, we will probably need to re-check the prose again, which means that we will need to start over. In short, if Dough4872 is practically rewriting the article, we really need to start the review over. Feel free to bring this back once the issues above are dealt with. ACR is not a peer review. --Rschen7754 07:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead and close the review now. I will look at Fredddie and Mitchazenia's unresolved comments to fix the article and renominate at ACR once those issues are addressed. Dough4872 22:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To add to this, you can still work on the comments with the ACR closed. After addressing all of Mitchazenia's comments, we will probably need to re-check the prose again, which means that we will need to start over. In short, if Dough4872 is practically rewriting the article, we really need to start the review over. Feel free to bring this back once the issues above are dealt with. ACR is not a peer review. --Rschen7754 07:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but my comments about stability still stand. --Rschen7754 08:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would still like this review to remain open as I plan on returning to this article once I get back up to school later this month. Dough4872 22:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. 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.