This highway in Atlantic City, New Jersey runs for less than 2.4 miles (3.9 km), yet it has a pretty interesting (and controversial) history. First proposed in the 1960s, planning didn't begin for over 30 years, until casino mogul Steve Wynn proposed building a new resort, but only under the conditions that a new highway be built to it. The project had many opponents, including local residents (whose homes were eventually demolished for its construction) and Donald Trump (back in his casino days). Politicians supported the project and it was ultimately built, carrying up to 25,000 vehicles per day.
I've always had a fascination with Atlantic City and highway infrastructure, so I started working on this article in 2007. I got it promoted to both GA and A-Class in 2008, then I didn't touch the article for many years. Finally, after 15 years and 2 peer reviews, I am ready to submit this for FA nomination!
Not sure how to answer your first question. The only icons in the article are highway shields, which are automatically rendered through the {{jct}} template, and I don't see how they would not be compliant with MOS:ICON. Regarding the Connector shield, I have updated the file description to note that it was first designed/published in 1964. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can elaborate on why you feel they are noncompliant. The use of highway shield icons in infoboxes and junction/exit tables is standard for highway articles (both in the US and other countries). Every highway article in WP:FA#Road infrastructure uses these icons. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article. Two quick things that jumped out at me, though:
The opening of the connector also shifted business from casinos along the Atlantic City Boardwalk to those in the Marina district. The eight casinos along the boardwalk in 2001 were down to four by 2016.
This is misleading. The cited article happened to be written in the year that was the absolute nadir of the AC casino industry in general. List of casinos in New Jersey indicates that there are currently six casinos outside the marina district; 2016 was weird because that was when the Taj Mahal was closing down to be reopened later as Hard Rock (which was not surprising), and when the Revel had closed down but not yet reopened as Ocean (okay, this one was more feasible to think that Revel was maybe dusted forever in 2016). Additionally, the Borgata is also the best-run casino in town and the second-most modern; it's making the Marina location look better simply by happening to be there, equivalent to hyping up the coaching staff of a successful basketball team that also happens to have some star player on it. Maybe, but maybe it's just that's where the star is currently playing. I recognize that the Press article does suggest such a shift, but I think we can use editorial discretion and write that off as an artifact of the very specific time it was written. I think we can use the article to endorse the idea that easier access made the Marina area more lucrative, but the idea that it somehow made the Boardwalk casinos worse off would require a more recent source IMO.
Critics dismissed the project as the "road to nowhere".
Okay, on one hand, spicy magazine-style quotes are good to avoid a topic from getting too dry, but... this was a pretty unfair jibe. When casual readers think "X to nowhere", they often think of the likes of the Gravina Island Bridge that would have connected 50 people with a bridge. Brigantine isn't exactly nowhere - 10K people live there, so even if there were no casinos in the Marina at all, it's not like this kind of project would have been totally troll. Up to you on whether to keep this, but it might suggest there was more to the claims of it being a "private driveway" than was really accurate. SnowFire (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. I took out the "road to nowhere" sentence, which was easily expendable. Regarding the first comment, I could rewrite these sentences in the context of the news article itself (i.e. In 2016, The Press of Atlantic City published an article that discussed how the connector affected the city's casino industry..."). I don't want to entirely nix the last 3 sentences of the article. What do you suggest here? –Dream out loud (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removing that quote works for me.
On the "Connector caused the boardwalk to shrivel to only 4 casinos" issue, one way to think about it is that the Connector has existed for 21 years, during which for a year and a half or so there were a mere 4 casinos at the boardwalk. And our source happens to be written during that year and a half - when that ThePressOfAC article was written, as far as the author knew, those closed Boardwalk casinos would never reopen, and maybe more would close. That isn't what happened, though. I dunno, it feels like citing an article written during the dot-com crash of 2000-2001 wondering whether a particular tech company would survive - when we know that said company did survive and later recovered its market capitalization, if possibly after making changes (per Whelan's comment). It sucks we don't have a newspaper article written in 2018 or later specifically on the topic of the Connector and Marina-Boardwalk balance, but alas, ThePressOfAC like most local news is a skeleton of its former self. If you're not comfortable with discussing the later history of the Boardwalk area (which would contradict the implication in the "only 4 casinos" comment of continued decline) for fear of WP:SYNTH, I'd rather cut that section down some instead. Maybe something like this (this is a suggestion, not a mandate, feel free to adjust):
The opening of the connector improved business for casinos in Atlantic City's Marina district. State records of 2016 showed that the three Marina district casinos had an average annual gross revenue of $134 million, compared to $70 million for the casinos along the boardwalk, the traditional center of Atlantic City gaming. Transportation analyst and former SJTA executive Anthony Marino cited the connector's ease of access to the Marina district casinos as a factor in their success and a challenge for boardwalk casinos; Whelan said it forced boardwalk casinos to reevaluate their business models.
I did a rewrite of the last 3 sentences based on your feedback. I think removing the details about the "suffering" of the boardwalk casinos was a good idea. –Dream out loud (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been very busy the past few weeks - travel & such. It's a good article! I can vouch for it from a Southern New Jersey perspective, if not the minutiae of Roads Wikiprojects. All the sources I checked seemed to check out if there's a desire for a reference check. On the icons issue above, that seems a wider issue than just this article - it seems like something that should be taken up with at a Wikiproject level, lest the author be stuck with two clashing sets of recommendations. Anyway, a few last nitpicks:
Hazardous materials are prohibited on the connector.
Genuine question: is this relevant enough to mention? It's in the Infobox, yes, but seems a bit minor to me (disclaimer: I don't really edit roads articles). If it's standard to mention this in articles on roads, go ahead and keep it, it just seems a little too in-the-weeds for most people who don't plan on driving trucks full of explosives into a tunnel.
however the SJTA said the design was a "compromise" to allow for a full interchange at Bacharach Boulevard and provide access to the convention center.
No need to quote compromise, right? It was a compromise, no qualification required.
fell from 15 minutes to four.
Is there some MOS guideline about not using inconsistent numeric types in short succession? Unsure. If there is, maybe "15 minutes to 4" for consistency-within-sentence even if four can be spelled out if it was on its own. SnowFire (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire All suggested changes have been made: removed mention of hazardous materials, removed unncessary quotes, changed numerical spelling. By the way, MOS:NUMNOTES does says that in comparable values, numbers should be written consistently. Would appreciate your "Support" on this nomination! Thanks. –Dream out loud (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on content. Note that I did a partial source review as well and happy to check the other references if desired, but the refs I did check checked out. SnowFire (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and gave it a more thorough look-through, checking all the refs I had access to. In my opinion, the best and most important sources are the Press of AC articles. This is an obscure topic so I understand there's a larger degree of primary-ish sources than preferable in better covered topics, but I don't believe that the primary sources are used particularly inappropriately. As stated in the earlier discussion, I disagree that the corporate contractor sources used earlier were that problematic, but it's entirely possible Rschen knows something more about WikiProject Roads level expectations than I do - like I said, I'm approaching this from a South Jersey perspective than a roads perspective. But it seems like Dream's removed that content so maybe moot now.
I will say that there are certainly more citations to random technical documents than would be ideal, but so it goes. On the Trump/Wynn feud book, I'll add that 2001-era Donald Trump was not yet 2016 Donald Trump- he had his name on 3 casinos, sure, but his actual stake in them was far from 100%, and he certainly didn't have much influence over the NJ legislature. Wynn was a richer and bigger player in the era. I don't think there needs to be any more content on Trump's opposition - it's entertaining and he liked getting media attention at the time, but it wasn't some automatic deal-killer or anything, much as Trump might have liked to think to have had that much influence.
has a posted speed limit of 35 mph (56 km/h).[7]
Strictly speaking, this is a reference that the speed limit was 35 mph in 2001. The YouTube dash cam video seems to show it's still 35 mph, and this may well be too boring to find a source on, but it might be nice for a more recent source to verify this is still true.
Exits along the route are designated by letter from A to I.[8]
Nitpick: The Press article merely says "has lettered exits but skips for some reason from Exit B to Exit E," and the later referenced map doesn't seem to have the letters on it. I don't actually care myself, but if you want to be a stickler, see if one of the maps has the letters to verify it goes to I? But this is nitpicking.
a request for qualifications to developers interested in developing H-Tract, a former landfill site in the Marina district.[15]
Citing a primary source like a legal ruling directly isn't great. If this is truly the only source, oh well, but a better source would be nice. Also, it should be noted the ruling calls it "Huron North" not "H-Tract", as do most of the sources I checked... it's called H-Tract elsewhere, I take it? Or is that just a subsection of Huron North? Maybe worth straightening out.
Wynn obtained the property from the city following his proposal to construct Le Jardin, a $1 billion casino resort.[16]
The "Culture of Corruption" book says that Wynn wanted to build to Le Jardin, yes, but it doesn't verify that Le Jardin and Huron North are the same thing. This article in the Le Jardin blurb verifies that Le Jardin was "on the Huron North Development Area site", but not that Wynn owned the entire Huron North (H-Tract?) area. I don't have access to the 1995 " "Link Between Expressway and Route 30 Proposed" article, is this information confirmed there? This might need some clarification, and not implying Wynn owned the whole area if it turns out he didn't.
Thanks for the detailed source review. Here are my comments:
Speed limits aren't something that usually change. Ref 6 confirms that the speed limit is still 35 mph, but I don't think it's necessary to update the citation in the text.
To show the exit letters, you can look at Ref 4, which shows that the final exit is designated as Ramp I. This also shows that the exit letters correspond to the ramp letters. You can also see it on Google Street View.
I agree that citing a legal ruling for an article like this isn't the best option, but I haven't been able to find any other sources that discuss that pre-planning stages of the highway. I did replace one of the citations with a new source, which also cites that the land was called "H-Tract". Le Jardin and Huron North are not the same thing: Le Jardin was the name of the proposed (unbuilt) casino and Huron North (aka H-Tract) is the land where it was to be built. This report also confirms that the H-Tract and Huron North are synonymous. (I also learned that it should be written with a definite article as in "the H-Tract" which I have since updated.)
The one reference was fixed to comply with MOS:PAGERANGE.
Can you add a repeat of reference 4 (the map) after the line "Exits along the route are designated by letter from A to I," then? Just saying that the ref currently after the line doesn't technically go that far.
This might be nitpicking, but you've written "The city of Atlantic City issued a request for proposal to developers interested in developing the H-Tract, a former landfill site in the Marina district.[15] Wynn obtained the property from the city following his proposal to construct Le Jardin, a $1 billion casino resort." That's the part I'm asking for a reference on and what I really meant by "verifying Le Jardin and Huron North are the same thing," sorry if I was unclear. Of course Le Jardin was Wynn's proposal, but.... Did Wynn outright own Huron North / the H-Tract (like the bolded article passage currently suggests), or did the government own it and merely grant Wynn the rights to develop it? The court case you've cited here, as well as the existing references, seem to echo that Le Jardin would be in Huron North, but not that Le Jardin would cover all of Huron North, nor that Wynn owned the property outright. If anything, I would argue that the Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts Inc. case you've cited hints the reverse: it's not merely trying to injunct building the connector, but also "development of the Huron North Redevelopment Area." I'm not a land use expert, but that seems like a difficult claim to make if Wynn truly owned the H-Tract out-and-out; a proposed injunction forbidding development of city/state property would make more sense. (And regardless, I would suggest throwing an extra verifying reference or two on the sentence... as noted before, I don't think the "New Jersey's Culture of Corruption" passage quite covers everything being claimed.)
Per Rschen's comment below, you might need to get somebody else to do at least a cursory source review as well if you want his !vote. (But thanks for replying to mine!) SnowFire (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated Ref 4 as requested.
This article states "Wynn acquired a 150-acre piece of land for $1", implying the city sold it to him for that price. This article also mentions that the land was "given" to Wynn by the city. So it's clear that it was his land at the time. I don't think the details of the the transaction are necessary, but I'll add in the source I just linked.
Rschen seems to have an issue with just one source, but has already given his support to the promotion.
Yes, I know Ref 44 is a dead link, hence it is tagged with {{dead link}} as per WP:KDL. I have not been able to find an archived link or an alternative citation.
"Locally known as 'the Tunnel'" is cited in the final section.
"Averages" refer to the fact that most of the highway has two lanes in each direction. There are small sections where is it one lane or three lanes per direction.
C and D footnotes will be removed. I don't see a need to mention them in the article text, as per additional comments below.
As far as the dead link I don't know how that is handled in FAs so I'll let others comment on that.
Are there statistics on the present day traffic counts?
You mention environmental concerns having to do with wetlands - were there any more details as to the specifics? i.e. destruction of habitat, effects on certain species.
Controversy, second paragraph - the first few sentences seem out of order. This makes it sound like Trump was opposed to the connector, which led to his being opposed to the casino. I assume it is the other way around.
I am a little surprised that the book itself is not referenced as a source.
Reference 39 doesn't seem to point to anything relevant (broken anchor) and I am not sure that it would be a valid citation for this purpose anyway (being a corporate website).
Similar concerns with reference 43. It seems like a construction company talking about what they did on their own website, which is not exactly neutral.
From the URL, reference 44 might fall into the same category.
$6.4 billion - probably should have inflation, but not sure this is a relevant detail for this article
Following the opening of Borgata in 2003 - the casino, I assume.
Trump was opposed to the connector because it would lead to the creation of a new casino. The first sentence states the fact that he's opposed to it, and the second sentence states why he was opposed and what he did about it. I don't really see how the sentences should be switched around.
I haven't read the aforementioned book. Since the connector is the main subject of the book, it wouldn't make sense to cite the entire book (which is over 200 pages), so instead I cited a review about it.
Ref 39 has been fixed with an archive link.
Regarding ref nos. 39, 43, and 44, I don't see how using them as citations is a violation of WP:IS. The information cited here are facts about the project (e.g. number of workers, depth of the trench, type of technology installed), and not opinions or something that goes against a neutral point of view.
Detail about "$6.4 billion deal" has been removed.
Yes, the opening of the Borgata casino was in 2003. No need to state that it is a casino because that was already done in the previous section.
As far as the references, those are basically WP:SPS and do not fall under any exceptions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the construction sites is to promote their work. I do not see how they can be used here. --Rschen775415:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a peanut gallery comment on Rschen's concerns: On the carbon monoxide clearing system reference, I don't think a dead link with no archive is problematic in FAs, myself, since that link was merely a mirror of what was presumably a physical document prepared by the company. That physical document is what's being cited and there was a courtesy link to the source which is, annoyingly, currently dead. Besides, it's a supplemental reference anyway since that line is also referenced by the SJTA press release. (The only possible qualm is that the sentence links to Intelligent transportation system, but the SJTA press release merely calls it a "system." Oh well, not a huge leap to guess what kind of system it meant.) On the contested "official" sources: I think the important thing is that it comes down to whether the claims are promotional or not. The bit about dewatering being done (ref 43) seems a useful reference - the reference is merely saying that the company worked on dewatering which was necessary for the connector, which is both extremely plausible (Absecon Island is like 2 feet above sea level at that point) and an unlikely thing to lie about. For reference 39, I think the trench stuff is similar to dewatering, it'd be bizarre to lie about and is merely sourcing facts about the project. The worker count is a bit shakier (how were they counting?) - I personally don't think it's an issue but can see how that might be perceived as promotional (if it turns out that they were counting every hot dog vendor or the like). I do agree that『largest design–build project performed by the State of New Jersey and the largest public–private partnership project』isn't appropriate to source to the company and that sentence should be exclusively sourced to secondary sources, e.g. mirror what Delaney wrote and nobody else. SnowFire (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics can be inflated, processes used can be exaggerated, and the rationales can be made up. I am still of the opinion that those sources need to go (and in at least one case the sentence is cited to something else as well). I am also concerned that the book was not consulted and am worried that the article is not comprehensive. On a broad topic like a US president, omitting one book out of many is not a big deal, but on a narrow topic like this one, there probably are not many books around so it is. --Rschen775401:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The book mainly details the feud between Trump and Wynn, not the highway itself. I don't think we need to go into more details about their feud here, which is already discussed in the Controversies section with other references. About your concerns for the self-published sources, I'm going to refer back to what SnowFire said above. Additionally, WP:ABOUTSELF clearly states that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" as long as it is not an "exceptional claim" or any reason to doubt its authenticity. What's being cited here are small facts about the construction: the fact that a dewatering process was used, the depth of the trench dug, and that intelligent transportation system technology was installed. None of these claims have any reasonable doubt and it does not involve claims about third parties or events not directly related to the source. –Dream out loud (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the abstract [2] I am not so sure - isn't the feud an essential part of the history of the road? As far as the sources, I am happy to defer to the source review, however I cannot think of any road FA that uses construction company sites in this manner. (Keep in mind that the FA criteria require "high-quality reliable sources"). --Rschen775417:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I came across the Moretrench source (40) on a project profile page on the Federal Highway Administration's website.[3] I hope that can attribute to its validity. I was also able to replace the Yonkers source by using the Moretrench source a second time. So that just leaves a reference by Kapsch (43) which is only included to cite the fact that intelligent transportation system (ITS) technology was used. Other sources discuss the technology implemented by don't specifically mention "ITS" by name.
Regarding The War at the Shore book source: I looked at some other abstracts ([4][5][6]) which don't even mention the connector at all. It seems the main subject of the book is the Trump–Wynn feud, and we already have a few sentences discussing that. There's no reason to go into more details about their feud here, because everything relating to the construction of the connector is already included here.
Regarding the book, on second thought I am concerned that it was not written from a neutral standpoint (author worked for one of the casinos) so it might not be so good after all. --Rschen775417:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still do have concerns about the Moretrench source, however the citations to it are not exceptional claims. Other reviewers do not seem to think that it is an issue so I will not stand in the way of promotion. That was my only concern, I think the article is good otherwise. --Rschen775402:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three weeks in and no general supports. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Barely 18 hours have gone by in between your comments - it does give the impression that you are eager to get rid of this nomination. Could you possibly wait a bit longer? --Rschen775417:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I am rarely keen to get rid of a nomination. What I wanted to communicate was that the general support since my first post had gained you a little time and to quantify it. Clearly I failed. And, er, 39 hours. So without my second note you would be thinking that you were within 9 hours of the lower boundary of my first notification; I have, effectively, reset the clock. Apologies again if this did not come across.
Have you considered putting a neutrally phrased request for a review on the talk pages of editors who may be interested in this sort of article or may be otherwise well disposed towards the nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could personally review it myself, however as someone who has contributed heavily in the topic (and considering recent rhetoric across the site) I am concerned that my review would be weighted less. --Rschen775417:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that, Rschen -- it's good to have reviewers well-versed in the topic, as well as one or two more removed from a subject to help ensure accessibility of language and so on. Your review would be welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your insider opinions would receive considerable weight - can't beat an expert review, although I agree with Ian's mild caveat. We coordinators are remarkably uninfluenced by rhetoric. Please have at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: There is a disagreement over the use of a few sources to the point where I cannot support. Since a source review is still outstanding I would suggest that it be allowed to continue to provide an additional opinion. Outside of those sources I would have no issues supporting. --Rschen775401:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Kapsch source referencing the highway's ITS. I believe that was the only remaining source that you had an issue with. If there are any other sources please let me know. I also agree with the statement above that The War at the Shore may not be a good source to cite directly due to possible NPOV issues. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream out loud and Rschen7754: As stated before, I already did a source review - if an informal one, but I did read all the non-archived Press of AC articles used as references and verify they were good, as I did on the major SJDOT press releases. I've given it a more thorough look now, see above. Rschen, if you want a third set of eyes not mine, I won't be offended (since we disagreed above on the contractor sources), but I gave it a reasonably close look I think. SnowFire (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should define the abbreviation for South Jersey Transportation Authority in the lead when first mentioned rather than waiting until the route description.
In the lead, I would mention that NJDOT assigns the connector the Route 446X designation.
In the route description you spell out “Atlantic City Expressway” then abbreviate it at “A.C. Expressway”. I would be consistent here and just spell out the second instance in full
I also noticed the “A.C. Expressway” abbreviation again in the history.
You do not need to link in image captions to terms that are already linked in the prose, such as “Atlantic City Rail Terminal” and “Borgata”
“A shortage of materials and delivery delays in late 2000 delayed the connector's opening from May to July 2001”, you use “delay” twice in the same sentence.
Do we really need the notes section? The only note I see worth keeping is about the length. The nicknames in the notes can be integrated into the lead and I don’t really see a need for the notes about the skipped/out-of-sequence exit letters.
Peanut gallery comment: I'm not the nominator, but I don't really agree on some of these changes. Strong disagree that which regulatory body assigns the Route 446X designation is relevant enough for the lede. The lede is designed for a general audience; it needs to be the most tightly written section. The exact regulatory body assigning a technical name that is never used in common parlance isn't relevant. I also don't see the problem with using "AC Expressway", which is a very common short form of the road (see Electric vehicle fast-charging station open on AC Expressway for a 2022 news article using that form in the headline as one example). Image captions are explicitly okay to repeat links in prose and this is often helpful, as they're shorn of context. Finally, everything in "Notes" is all minutiae that certainly shouldn't be in prose. I can see arguing to delete it entirely, but including stuff like how the exit lettering scheme is slightly wacky in parts in text would just be bloat. SnowFire (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we do want to use the “A.C. Expressway” abbreviation, it needs to be defined as not all readers will understand that it is short for “Atlantic City Expressway”. I think we don’t need to make note of all the quirks in the exit lettering scheme in either the prose or a notes section as the reader can infer from looking at the exit list. Dough487204:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Yeah, sorry, I was going to make a ninja edit to fix that after I realize I misread you on that part about exit identifiers in the notes. My bad there, I think we agree on that.) SnowFire (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SJTA abbreviation added to lead
I agree with SnowFire that it is not necessary to mention NJDOT in the lead
Abbreviation for A.C. Expressway has been added to Route description section (this is a common abbreviation, as automatically rendered in {{jct}} and seen on highway signs such as this one)
Unnecessary links have been removed from image captions
Fixed sentence about delays
Notes section shortened and merged into References
Originally the two alternative names were in a footnote so I could avoid having four names in the lead sentence. I've since revised that, but I'm not sure the best way to format all four names in the sentence so please let me know how it currently looks.
Your use of the website/work and publisher parameters for web citations doesn't seem consistent. For example, [3] uses the publisher parameter but not website; [46] uses website but not publisher.
[50] is missing the "url-access = subscription" parameter.
You have [30] marked as requiring subscription but that doesn't appear to be the case.
The work parameter was used for newspaper/magazine websites, while publisher was used for non-media websites (i.e. SJTA, FHWA), so you should see some consistency there
[50] does not seem to require a subscription, although all the other Press of AC links do require one
Las Vegas Sun links no longer seem to require a subscription, so I've removed the parameter from those citations
