Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 09:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to be review this - it's been on the pile for a while.

I see two obvious problems.

The first is related to stability - since the GA nomination was created in April, there's been an RFC over content. In all fairness, I haven't spotted any blatantly continuous problematic edit warring, though reverts like these ones don't fill me with confidence that the article is stable. I see several major players in the article, including Coretheapple, JackGavin and Cwobeel, and I think they will all need to be aware the review is going on, as they will probably want to comment.

The second problem, peripherally related to the first, is that the article is just too long. 77K of prose really is on the outer limit of what a typical reader can digest in one sitting. I suspect what may have happened here is that editors had differing views as to what information to include, and consensus was to put in all of it. Perhaps for a broad and major topic such as Middle Ages or History of Ireland that span multiple centuries, that size is acceptable, but for an event like this, I'm not sure every single facet will be considered important in 10, 20, 50, 100 years' time? In particular, I think the entire "Timeline" section can simply go - Wikipedia isn't the place for a list of day by day events as they unfold. That really belongs in Wikisource, Wikinews or some other project, not in a general purpose encyclopedia.

Specific comments will follow. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for agreeing to take this on. I agree with you on the points below, especially length. The reason I nominated this originally was because I was concerned about the length and the writing; there was some problematic editing going on, as well as edit warring, but that has long since ceased. So while I understand your concern about stability, I think that the article is stable at this time and the editing atmosphere isn't bad. I think we can all work together to get this in shape, though my own participation will be limited as I will be flitting on and off wiki for the next few weeks. Coretheapple (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead is just too long. A complete outsider should be able to come to this article and in a few minutes have a good cursory understanding of the subject just from reading the lead. I would probably split things up into three paragraphs as follows, which should be enough:

Paragraph 1 - Basic definition of the scandal and its relationship with Christie
Paragraph 2 - Dates, source of the gridlock, related problems such as emergency service access
Paragraph 3 - Public reaction to Christie, staff resignations and a brief summary of how it affected his political career

"...is a U.S. political scandal" - suggest "was a political scandal in the United States". Regarding "is" vs "was", the aftermath of the scandal may be ongoing, but the traffic problems have gone (as best as can be expected under normal circumstances) and those responsible have either quit or been fired, so I think the main event is now over.
"...collaborated to create traffic jams in Fort Lee, New Jersey" - don't need "New Jersey" here, the earlier mention of Christie makes it clear what the context is
worth mentioning that the George Washington Bridge is the world's busiest bridge for motor vehicles in the opening paragraph, so a reader unfamiliar with NY will understand why it's vitally important to keep it running smoothly
"The resulting massive back-ups and gridlock on local streets" - don't need "massive"
"Several of Christie's appointees and aides either resigned or were forced out" - "forced out" sounds like an euphemism, wouldn't "fired" be simpler?

More later. This may take a few days to finish the review, but I'll go as quickly as circumstances allow. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, except that I think that "forced out" might be more precise than "fired." I'll have to check but I believe that was the dominant characterization in the sources. Coretheapple (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"spread among three toll plazas" - do you really need three inline citations to verify this?
"for the past 30 years or longer" - the source says "about 30 years", so it's possible it could be 29.5 years, for example. I'd simply repeat what the source says, you can't plagiarise three words.
It is not obvious where the "highways" wikilink goes until you click on it. Per WP:EASTER, this should be changed or removed
"There are other Fort Lee street entrances, which do not have dedicated toll lanes, to the lower and upper levels of the bridge." - this sentence is unsourced
The article mentions the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, but does not explain what it is. This needs a simple definition before explaining its management and operational structure

Key people

As I suggested above, this section is problematic. In general, lists should be avoided and represented as prose wherever possible. The list also mixes up the timeframe, showing their role and subsequent aftermath. The manual of style criteria for embedded lists is one of the few guidelines that is enforced for good articles. The simplest solution, which would solve both this and the size issue would be to split this section (and, indeed, lists further down the article), would be to create a spinoff article, List of people involved in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, move the content here, and summarise it as prose in this article.
The image captions needed to be expanded to show their relevance. Just saying that Chris Christie is the NJ governor doesn't really mean much for this article - say something like "New Jersey governor Chris Christie denied any involvement with the scandal, but was widely criticised after being cleared of any charges"

Events

"During the week of August 4, 2013" - this date doesn't appear to be in the Tentonian source given
The second sentence in the first paragraph is too long and needs to be broken up into sections
"did not endorse Christie for re-election" .... "won re-election". To avoid repetition, could one of these "re-elections" be reworded?

More later.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

"to the upper level of the GW Bridge" - just "the bridge" should suffice here
The second and third paragraphs can probably be combined
""urgent matter of public safety in Fort Lee" - this direct quotation does not appear in the next citation, which is this article in The Hill
"That email noted two specific incidents: a missing child (later found) and a cardiac arrest" - as we've already mentioned the cardiac arrest incident above, might it be worth moving the missing child incident above to fit with that and delete this?
" to Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich" - this is the first mention of Sokolich in the body, so should be linked here
"Radio silence. His name comes right after Mayor Fulop [of Jersey City]." - I don't understand what this means
"a Christie childhood friend" - "a childhood friend of Christie" sounds better
"Presently we have four very busy traffic lanes merging into only one toll booth" - this quotation does not appear to be in the New York Times source given, and elsewhere in the article I got the impression that only three lanes were used for traffic (and hence being merged into one)
"Also on Tuesday," - this paragraph can be merged with the preceding one, which makes this obsolete
"Sokolich wrote to Baroni" - this paragraph can be merged with the previous one.

Re-opening and immediate aftermath

"On Friday, September 13, 2013" - don't need "2013", we know what the context is from earlier sections
""how Christie loyalists inside the PA worked to orchestrate a cover-up after traffic mayhem" - is there any particular reason this quotation can't simply be re-paraphrased as prose?
"the GW Bridge problems" - suggest "the traffic problems", the bridge itself wasn't an issue per se
This paragraph seems to be a lot of "'x' said 'y', and emailed 'z' who said 'a,b,c'" - I think quite a bit of this can be cut down a bit without losing too much important information. The salient point is that the bridge was re-opened, foul play was suspected, and despite a cover-up, the truth leaked out. That's the key message this section should bring through, without necessarily focusing specifics of who said what where and when.

David Samson allegations

"In February 2014, Christie stood firmly behind his support of Samson as PA chairman" - I think we could remove this sentence without losing any important information. We can infer that he was being supported by Christie as he resigned rather than was pushed out.

More later. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible motives

"One widely held theory" - generally it's better to say who proposed the theory specifically, particularly in this case as it points fingers towards political scandals
"he was asked for an endorsement once, in the spring of 2013" - I can't seem to find the specific point in the sources given that prove this is correct, can you find it?
The second paragraph feels a bit like too much off-topic detail about Sokolich and Christie - I wonder if we could trim it down a bit.
The third paragraph (re: "tough November for this little Serbian") has already been mentioned earlier, so doesn't need to be repeated here
the "Radio silence" quotation has already been mentioned earlier

Investigations

This citation at the end of the first paragraph is a dead link (tagged as such).

More later. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having got to this point, I started going through the individual accounts through January and February, and I think I'm going to have to conclude that there is too much work to do at this time to the article in the short term to get it to GA status. The lists definitely need to go, and the remainder of the prose needs to be worked down and summarised. The key issues I think come down to WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, which cause the article to be unfocused - and that unfortunately is a deal-breaker for GAs. Looking for something with a comparable subject matter, I read through United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal, which was a major national scandal played out over several months with far more people than the Fort Lee scandal, and controversial enough to be extensively sourced - yet it's only 27k, despite being a pretty comprehensive account of the events.

Thoughts? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that I have to agree with you on all points. The lists have bothered me for a long time. Why do we need a list of the lawyers of key personnel, for example? And yes, it is unfocused. I hope that your suggestions can become the starting off point for fixing this article and doing the major editing that's needed. Thanks very much for weighing in and helping. Coretheapple (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll close the review for now. There are certainly plenty of action points to get on with that will make the article better, so it's not all bad. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this will be a wakeup call for the regular editors on the page. Thanks again. Coretheapple (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]