MyWiki:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pennsylvania Turnpike/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pennsylvania Turnpike

[edit source]

Not promoted. Imzadi 1979 → 23:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

{{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=Pennsylvania Turnpike}} Pennsylvania Turnpike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: After the previous ACR turned into a peer review that significantly rewrote the article, I would like to renominate as I feel the article is now in better shape and should be able to go to FAC in the future.
Nominated by: Dough4872 23:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment to be honest, I was expecting something a little more substantial than this. --Rschen7754 05:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Agreed. It's nice to see that things I requested were changed, but I was thinking/hoping you'd go through each paragraph and rewrite for flow and clarity. –Fredddie™ 02:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above, and no response from the nominator. --Rschen7754 23:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Would you like it if I got a copyeditor to go through the article? Dough4872 15:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that would not address my issues with possible missing content. --Rschen7754 20:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been almost a month since we've started this. Any objections to closing this? --Rschen7754 06:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

At this point I feel I had completed the research and addressed issues from the previous ACR. I would like to see more feedback from other users. Dough4872 15:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by Scott5114

[edit source]

Let's do this. First, a general note: This article could use a good copyedit. I recommend asking one of the copyedit-request groups to lend a set of eyes to the article. For the most part, I will not touch on these in my review.

  1. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: This may be the official name of the state, but it could be confusing for non-US readers, who may think Pennsylvania has the same sort of arrangement as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Consider the simpler "U.S. state of Pennsylvania" instead.
    Changed. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. it runs 360 miles: runs for
    Fixed. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. The turnpike designation begins at the Ohio border in Lawrence County, where the turnpike designation continues as the Ohio Turnpike. The designation ends at... Is the word designation really appropriate here? It feels unnatural; usually we only use designation to refer to a route number in a context specifically excluding the roadbed. The second half of the sentence would be better if it were more along the lines of "the road continues west into Ohio as the Ohio Turnpike".
    Fixed. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  4. The roadway runs an east-west path through the state... Runs a path?
    Reworded. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  5. Consider eschewing utilizes in favor of the simpler uses unless you are trying to vary sentence structure by avoiding uses.
    Changed. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  6. The first sentence in the r/d should utilize use an en dash.
    Where is the en dash supposed to be used? Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    east–west. I have fixed it myself, but for future reference, according to WP:MOSDASH, an en dash is used any time two terms that are different have a dash between them, ex. east–west, Kansas–Missouri state line, a score of 5–4, etc. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  7. I am not sure how true it is, but I have heard that border is a word that generally refers only to international borders. The borders of states are state lines.
    Changed. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  8. where it reaches its first interchange in the state with I-376: this reads as though it is coming to its first interchange, which happens to be in the state that I-376 is in.
    Reworded. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  9. You have two sentences in a row where the turnpike reaches something. Vary sentence structure to keep the reader from falling asleep and drooling on his keyboard.
    Fixed. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  10. The road comes to the Warrendale toll plaza, which is where toll ticketing begins. Wait, so how were tolls being assessed before?
    West of Warrendale, there are no tolls at exits with the only toll on that portion being the eastbound Gateway toll plaza. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  11. You use the words "rural areas" and "suburban areas" a lot. Not only is this repetitive, but it is a very superficial way to describe the surroundings of the road. It feels really flat and anonymous. Change things up, and be more specific: what is the name of the suburb, or the township that forms the rural area? Same with "woods"; if you're not prepared to describe what type of forest it is, and why it's significant, it's better to leave it out. Consider revising sentences such as these to describe the highway's location more specifically; use distances from villages and named physical features, as in the highway passes one mile north of Quindaro, for example.
    Fixed. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  12. We roadgeeks love to pick on Breezewood, but explaining what happens to I-70 after it exits from the Pennsylvania Turnpike is out of the scope of this article. It should be removed.
    Removed. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  13. Within Lower Swatara Township, the turnpike has an interchange with the southern terminus of I-283: no, it doesn't; it has an interchange with I-283. You can't have an interchange with a terminus.
    Reworded. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  14. A short distance later, the road has a westbound exit and entrance for Virginia Drive that is for E-ZPass tagholders only: Instead of "a short distance", specify it numerically. Are the exit and entrance ramps themselves westbound only, or do you mean to say that they can be accessed from the westbound lanes only? Perhaps instead of saying the ramps are "for E-ZPass tagholders only", you should explain that use by non-tagholders is legally prohibited.
    Added distance, there is only an exit from the westbound turnpike and an entrance to the westbound turnpike, reworded. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  15. The Features section does not comply with WP:USRD/STDS. It should be split into Services and Tolls sections, which are standard sections under the guideline, although they are not always seen because they are usually only applicable to toll roads. Major bridges and tunnels and speed limits should be covered in the route description. Kansas Turnpike has gotten a lot of shit lately but its structure is still the gold standard for how a turnpike article should be structured. See also Chickasaw Turnpike. I will decline to comment on this section while it's in its current format.
    Fixed to comply with standards as suggested. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  16. Later, European settlers followed wagon roads in order to cross that state. Using that state to refer to Pennsylvania is jarring, as there's really no ambiguity as to which state you're referring to. Use the state.
    Fixed. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  17. The sentence regarding the Main Line of Public Works is written in passive voice, which obscures who was responsible for it. Use active voice instead, so you can explain who opened it.
    I do not see a problem with the way it is written, it explains that the canal opened and what it was. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    See passive voice and active voice. Prevailing writing advice is that active voice is generally preferred when possible. An example of an active voice reconstruction of this sentence would be "In 1834, the Pennsylvania Department of Whatever opened the Main Line of Public Works, a system of canals, railroads, and inclined planes across Pennsylvania. This system competed with the Erie Canal in New York." (sentence split for good measure since the Erie Canal business is a separate thought) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  18. The paragraph about the railroads is interesting but it doesn't establish which of the competing railroads corresponds to the modern-day turnpike. Where was the Pennsylvania Railroad?
    The South Pennsylvania Railroad was planned on what is now the turnpike while the Pennsylvania Railroad followed an alignment farther to the north. The article does make clear the turnpike used the tunnels of the unfinished railroad. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  19. Another railroad known as the South Pennsylvania Railroad was proposed in the 1880s to cross the mountains in direct competition with the Pennsylvania Railroad. You can make this sentence a lot shorter and more direct by revising it to "A competing railroad, known as the South Pennsylvania Railroad, was proposed in the 1880s."
    Reworded. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  20. It might be worthwhile to include a short aside as to why Carnegie cared what the rates of the Pennsylvania Raiload were.
  21. As a result of the challenges of crossing the mountains of Pennsylvania by car, William Sutherland of the Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association and Victor Lecoq of the Pennsylvania State Planning Commission proposed a toll highway in 1934 to cross the mountains. This sentence mentions crossing the mountains twice. That's redundant. Try to restructure the sentence to avoid this.
    Fixed. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  22. In addition to improved travel across the mountains... You already said this twice this paragraph!
    Fixed. Dough4872 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  23. Curves were to be wide and the roadway signage was to be large. Any chance we could get more precise than wide and large? Compare to Kansas Turnpike, which says Curves along the turnpike are limited to 3° and grades limited to 3%. This entire paragraph would probably be better in the "Design" subsection.
  24. In February 1938, the turnpike commission began looking into proposals for $55 million in bonds to be issued for construction of the turnpike. I'm not sure I follow what's going on in this sentence. Wouldn't the turnpike commission be the one issuing the bonds? If so, who's proposing the bonds be issued? Unless the PTC bond-issuance process is completely different from the one OTA uses, I'm lost.
  25. Plans were still made to sell bonds; the first issue was planned to be around $20 million... So is this a separate bond issue or did this replace the $60 million that was being discussed at the beginning of the paragraph? Did Van Ingen get their money back?
  26. In June, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) announced they would loan the commission an adequate amount of money to build the road. This loan from the RFC totaled $32 million: Why not just say "...announced they would loan the commission $32 million"?
  27. In September 1938, there was a proposal for railroad: In March 2013, there was missing word. This paragraph might be better folded into the paragraph discussing the railroads earlier in the history section, even though that makes things slightly out-of-order chronologically. Who turned it down? PTC?
  28. There is precedent to "Design" being its own section, not a subsection of "History". You might consider whether that would make sense for this road. Some of the content of this section, however, is not design-related at all, but rather about the construction of the road.
  29. As the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel bore was in too poor condition to use: The wording is clunky here. Maybe "As the condition of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel was too poor to use..."?
  30. Concrete was used in lining the tunnel portals. Why not "The tunnel portals were lined with concrete"?
  31. Many designs of bridges were used to carry roads over the tollway: No, they weren't, a mere design can't carry a shoe, much less a road. Something like "The bridges that carried roads over the tollway used several designs" would be better. You could do one better and combine this sentence with the one that describes the bridges that the turnpike uses. They are all bridges; why make the distinction between them?
  32. Prior to groundbreaking of the first section, the turnpike commission sent workers out to assess the former railroad tunnels in 1937. The information from the design section about the tunnels and their condition should probably be moved here. Think about keeping related information like that all in one place, even if it means things are out of order chronologically.
  33. ...Walter A. Jones dug the first shovel into to earth. The construction of the turnpike was on a tight schedule as completion of the road originally planned by May 1, 1940. Basic grammatical errors—or one may go so far as to say typos—are present in two sentences in a row. As previously stated, a copyeditor needs to go through this article.
  34. After groundbreaking, contracts were awarded for various work in building the road, such as finishing the tunnels of the former South Pennsylvania Railroad, grading the turnpike's right-of-way, construction of bridges, and paving operations. "Various" isn't a word that I've ever seen used to describe "work". Try something like "After groundbreaking, a series of contracts were awarded for various facets of the project, including finishing the tunnels..."
  35. The first work to begin on the road was grading its right-of-way, which involved a lot of earthwork because of mountainous terrain. "A lot of earthwork" probably slips below the bar of professionalism we're aiming for. The first clause feels awkward but I can't articulate a reason why. If you remove the prepositional phrases it says "The first work [...] was grading its right of way", which is even worse, so there's something wrong with that construction that's pinging my radar.
  36. Building the cut involved bulldozers excavating the mountain and explosives being used to blast the rock. Surely the explosives were used first, and then the bulldozers were brought in?
  37. The Clear Ridge cut was 153 feet (47 m) deep, the deepest highway cut at that time... The deepest where? On the Pennsylvania Turnpike? In Pennsylvania? In the United States? In the world? In the Alpha Quadrant? The Milky Way? The universe?
  38. A lot of work was also involved... There's "a lot" again. It could be argued that "a lot of work" is POV, since you (and PTC workers in the 1940s) could find it to be a lot of work, but modern highway engineers might consider it trivial.
  39. In New Baltimore, the turnpike commission had to purchase land from St. John's Church, which contained a cemetery. Creepy that they would put a cemetery inside a church...do people sit on the headstones instead of there being pews? But it has little to do with the turnpike, so why are we...oh, the land contained the cemetery. Whoops.
  40. The paragraph on paving operations is awkwardly structured. It starts talking about concrete paving, then randomly interjects that ramps were done in asphalt, then goes back to talking concrete. Also, the sentence These paving operations led to a delay in the projected opening of the highway and by October 1939 the completion data had been pushed back from May 1 to June 29, 1940 as paving would not take place during the winter of 1939–1940. has too many clauses going on, and would probably be better split into two sentences (a good breakpoint would be at and). Do you mean completion date instead of data?
  41. Completion was later pushed back to July 4 before being pushed further back to the later part of summer 1940 after rains delayed paving operations. This sentence is also too long and complex. Break it up, or at the least use some sort of comma or semicolon device.
  42. In the first 15 days of operation, the road saw over 150,000 vehicles. This sentence might go better with the preceding paragraph, which ends with a description of heavy traffic in the early days of the turnpike, and this sentence supports that with a statistic. The road saw 150,000 vehicles is a bit too poetic; roads can't see.
  43. ...cut down travel time between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg... "Down" is unnecessary; cut it down.
  44. The Susquehanna River Bridge was constructed with a 4-foot (1.2 m) raised concrete median and no shoulders to save costs. Can you really save a cost, which is a negative number? You can reduce it, or cut it, or you can save money, but...
  45. You may want to state that the original Carlisle interchange was closed, since there is a current Carlisle interchange that readers familiar with the road may confuse it with.
  46. Might want to say "it was intended to have been finished by..."
  47. It was scheduled to take place at the Brush Creek viaduct in Irwin with Governor Duff in attendance. The word "schedule" usually refers to temporal planning, not geospatial. Using it in the past tense like this also implies that it did not, in fact, take place as planned. If I said "I was scheduled to meet with the general manager at 2pm to discuss how he was running the business into the ground," it implies that for whatever reason that meeting either didn't take place (probably because he's a weenie that can't take honest criticism, so he canceled it) or maybe he was late (which is probably a contributing factor to how he's running the business into the ground). You get the idea.
  48. Traffic followed a temporary ramp onto rural local roads leading into small towns in Ohio until the connecting Ohio Turnpike could be built. Ditch rural. Care to specify which small towns we're dealing with in Ohio?
  49. Was the Valley Forge toll plaza relocated? It says it was located at the junction with the Schuylkill "as a result of building the extension", but it doesn't actually say that this project moved it.
  50. Can a bridge "contain" anything? Can anything contain a median? Can something contain the absence of something? These are very deep questions. I guess, theoretically, a beverage bottle could say "CONTAINS NO CAFFEINE!" I've never seen one that says "CONTAINS NO MEDIAN!" however. Must not perform very well in front of focus groups.

That's 50 points. I believe that's sufficient to illustrate its shortcomings (and besides, I am quickly becoming delirious). This article has a lot of potential. It appears to be built on a solid base of research (357 references!), and is very thorough. If this article were a building, those are the foundation and structure, respectively. The issue is the interior furnishings. Unfortunately, just good research and thoroughness do not an A-Class article make—one has to have compelling prose, too. This article needs quite a bit of attention to the actual writing before it can be put forward as our best work. So I must oppose at this time. The good news is, however, that this is comparatively easier than if you had to fix an article that is shoddily researched or with serious holes in its coverage. Request a copyedit, tune up that prose, and this article can shine. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on this review. I think Scott's advice should be heeded before we continue further. –Fredddie™ 23:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review by SounderBruce

[edit source]

Will do in a couple minutes. SounderBruce 04:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Overall, images look good and their placement in the article is good. SounderBruce 05:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments that might turn into a review by TCN7JM

[edit source]

After Scott is done reviewing, I'd like to look over the article once or twice to see if there are any major errors that stand out at me. I may not support/oppose, but if I find enough stuff that this turns into an actual review, I will. TCN7JM 05:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Scott does not seem interested in finishing his review, so go ahead. --Rschen7754 05:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not that I am uninterested in finishing it, it's that there would be little point in continuing it when I have 50 issues from the first half of the article alone. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Because of these things, I must also oppose. Much more stuff needs to be fixed. TCN7JM 23:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "http://70.231.62.181/index.php?title=MyWiki:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/Pennsylvania_Turnpike/archive2&oldid=12611861"