Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Kansas Turnpike

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways‎ | Assessment‎ | A-Class Review

Kansas Turnpike edit

The article was not demoted. –Fredddie™ 22:49, 22 August 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.
Toolbox

Kansas Turnpike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Review only; can't promote or demote here
Nominator's comments: This is a current FA that is here per WP:IAR. I think this could benefit from a good ACR and a set of four comprehensive reviews, as this was a FA promoted in 2007, and does not meet current FA standards.
Nominated by: Rschen7754 00:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 04:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Dough4872 edit

Here is what should be fixed in order to prevent this article from going to FAR:

  1. Is it possible for a better map to be made? Preferably a map of only Kansas showing the Kansas Turnpike and the other major highways in the state.
    One was already made, it's further down in the article. --Rschen7754 02:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Both are fine maps that meet WP:USRD/MTF criteria. I see no reason to change either one. –Fredddie™ 02:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would preferably replace the map in the infobox with the one in the Route description. Dough4872 02:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    At FAC, I was asked to give geographic context to the infobox map. The current infobox map does not need to do that. –Fredddie™ 03:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The lead mentions that a speed limit of 80 mph was initially imposed. Perhaps it should also mention what the speed limit is today.
  3. The third paragraph of the Early history section needs citations.
  4. Citation needed for "The turnpike originally had 14 interchanges; as of 2006, there are 27 interchanges."
    Done, and it's 22. --Rschen7754 04:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The second paragraph of The southern terminus section needs citations.
  6. Are there any historical events that occurred along the Kansas Turnpike since 1956?
  7. The statement "nor with neighboring Oklahoma's PikePass." needs a reference.
    Why?—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It cannot be assumed that PikePass is not compatible with K-Tag. A reference is needed to verify this. Dough4872 20:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it not the default for things to not be compatible instead of that they are compatible? Things usually have to be specifically designed to be compatible, and K-Tag was not. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are/were several ETC systems that are/were compatible with E-ZPass, such as I-Pass, I-Zoom, and Fast Lane. Dough4872 02:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Again—transponders are specifically designed to be compatible with EZ-Pass because it's the big one. Outside of the EZ-Pass consortium, everyone has their own standard. EZ-Pass is the exception to the norm. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. There are numerous uncited statements in the Route description, such as most of the first paragraph, "I-335 has only one interchange (with U.S. Route 56) along its section of the turnpike other than the two end junctions.", and the last two paragraphs.
    Got some of them. --Rschen7754 04:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I do not see the need for a redundant map in the Route description. As mentioned above, a better map should be made for the infobox.
    See comments above. --Rschen7754 18:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The sentence "This is similar to what the Pennsylvania Turnpike did in the 1970s, as that highway has an even narrower median. In both cases, as with all other toll roads that predated the Interstate Highway System, the highway is grandfathered from Interstate standards." needs a citation. Also, the Pennsylvania Turnpike completed adding a median in 1965.
  11. The speed limits in the Design section are redundant to the Speed limits section. Perhaps the Speed limits section could be integrated here.
  12. I do not get why "*KTA (*582)" and "511" are formatted differently. It could always be in normal text with quotes.
    I see no problem with this. --Rschen7754 18:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. There are numerous citations in the Interchanges section that need to be completed.
  14. The article is inconsistent with capitalizing "turnpike" and "Turnpike". The lowercase form should be used if Kansas is not in front of it.
  15. There are numerous uncited statements in the Interchanges section.
  16. There are a few dead links in the article, check the tool.
  17. References 15 and 48 are unreliable sources and need to be replaced.
    Got 15. --Rschen7754 04:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Overall, I think the article needs restructuring to meet current USRD standards. The order of the sections should follow the standard, with the Route description before the History. The other sections, such as Design, Speed Limits, Tolls, and Services, should be placed between the Route description and History. Also, as stated above, I would suggest that a MOS:RJL compliant exit list gets added as that is what all other USRD articles should have. I would recommend getting rid of the Interchanges section and folding the information into the Route description and Exit list, with relevant historical information added to the History section. Pennsylvania Turnpike can perhaps serve as a model for how this article should look. Dough4872 02:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:USRD/STDS does not explicitly specify an order that the sections must fall in; History falling before Route description is a characteristic common to several FAs. I still have not seen an acceptable argument for including an exit table that is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; you are going to have to craft an argument with a bit more substance to persuade me of that. The Interchanges section exceeds the standard by including more information, a classic application of WP:IAR. If you still intend on proving your point by taking this to FAR, I would expect these objections to be ignored there.
    Frankly, using a GA as a template to improve an FA seems like a really poor idea. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the objections to the current structure unconvincing, except for the lack of RJL table, which seems to me to be a serious omission. I find the table much easier to read. --Rschen7754 18:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The History can come before the Route description, but i would prefer if the Route description would come second after the History if it is desired to keep the History first. I still strongly recommend that a RJL-compliant exit list gets added, even if it is decided to keep the Interchanges section. Dough4872 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your circular logic makes me dizzy. –Fredddie™ 19:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't understand what's being suggested here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in the middle of reviewing Pennsylvania Turnpike for ACR (offline, I might add). I can assure you, Scott, that it is not a model for a turnpike article. –Fredddie™ 03:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have what may be a more convincing argument for putting the Route description before the History than "I don't like it" or "this is what we do elsewhere." The reader who reads the prose of the article from top to bottom needs to gain context. The Lead is helpful in this regard for important details and general themes, but not for less important details. I find it easier to understand the history of a road if I first learn how the road is in the present, then learn how the road originated and what changes were made to the road over time. If the Route description comes first, the present context is provided before the reader enters the History. If the History comes first, the context that is not provided in the Lead needs to be provided in the History; otherwise, the reader will get lost.  VC  17:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes completed edit

Since we have two reviews with some of the same issues above (and will probably end up with more), I am just going to list the changes I am making below so I don't have to post them to two different reviews. It would be appreciated if you would strike the relevant section of your review as issues are fixed, so we can see what's left to do. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Driven by Vision reference URLs updated, 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Current speed limit included in lead, 11:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "Speed limits" section moved to subheading of "Design" and redundant content merged/removed, 11:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 66 corrected (last remaining dead link). 23:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Capitalization on "Turnpike" removed when not preceded by "Kansas" 23:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Restructured article to merge Interchanges section into route description. Also added exit table. 12:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Noting that reference 66 is the only remaining dead link. --Rschen7754 18:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brycecordry's two cents edit

Recap edit

In short, here's what needs to be completed:

  • The RD still needs to have parts rewritten.
  • The history needs to have missing details incorporated, see Driven by Vision link and map archive above. For example, [6] - discussion about "is this toll road thing really gonna work after all?" It's really best if someone reads through the whole thing (it's only 40 pages and an easy read) and adds the details.
  • The tags need to be removed and associated issues need to be fixed - basically any NBI citations that remain after the rewrite, the sourcing to the email, and the citation needed tags. I think the mileposts tag can go, in my opinion.
    • To update: the only things needing citation are the description of how the route was chosen, Belle Plaine service area (which could be removed if it comes to that), and the transfer of the OK roadway to OKDOT.
  • Information about the 2003 flood should be added; there's a separate article where most of it would go, but the basics should be at least mentioned.

We're getting close. --Rschen7754 08:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If all these things are done, I will be declaring "Keep", but I will pull my "Send to FAR" declaration if something is done on the article, even as early as tonight. --Rschen7754 01:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through some of the references to tweak their formatting. I am going to see about replacing the MSR Maps citations in their entirety in the near future. Microsoft was supposed to shut down that website a year, and the USGS has created their own archive of topographic quadrangle maps. I used that archive to pull a historic quadrangle of the Gwinn, Michigan, area for the M-553 article, and I think it would be better to cite USGS topos direct from the source. That way we get full bibliographic details (scale, series, etc) to add to the footnotes. Imzadi 1979 → 17:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated almost all of the NBI references. There are three problems yet to be resolved:

  • I was unable to find a reference to the 1966 bridge in the previous unusual configuration of the Emporia interchange. This needs a non-NBI reference.
  • I was unable to find a reference to support the KTA ramps at Exit 42 only extending to 47th Street. The 47th Street bridge was replaced recently and there are no other I-135 bridges in Sedgwick County with a date of 1961. This needs a non-NBI reference.
  • In footnote A, there need to be several NBI references (probably five or six) to adequately cover all of the bridges referenced in the footnote. I really think you should find a way to incorporate footnote A into the prose, even if the sentences that explain when parts of the highway at the state line were built are not contiguous.  VC  01:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a way to track down a previous version of the NBI data (say, the NBI as of 2006 when most of these citations were added)? If so, we might be able to fill in the gaps there. With exit 127, we may be able to cite the old configuration with an old version of the KDOT map, since Emporia has an inset on the back of the map. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately I took a look at the old KDOT maps and there was no Emporia inset on the appropriate years. --Rschen7754 10:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be possible to find an archive on a government website or through something like the Wayback Machine, but really you should try to find other references to support the statements and, if possible, complement the NBI references. The NBI references are gradually going to become less useful as bridges are replaced.  VC  23:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • We found the old NBI and have cited it to that. The suggestions to move off NBI are good ones for the future, but I doubt that there is much momentum to continue for now. --Rschen7754 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declarations edit

  • Demote/send to FAR. It has been almost 9 months, and while much work has been done to improve the article, it is still quite far from the FA standard. Unfortunately, interest in fixing this article has trickled off, even from those who have agreed to work on this article. I highly doubt that this article would pass GA at this state. Of course, if editors followed through on their commitment to work on this article, I would strike this declaration and reconsider, but for now, there appears to be no interest. In the meantime, having this as a Featured Article reflects poorly on the roads projects, and I cannot support its retention as a Featured Article in good faith. --Rschen7754 22:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking this for now, as some progress has been made. --Rschen7754 01:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to FAR unless someone is willing to fix the article. Dough4872 00:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: please be aware that a third demote vote will close this review and send the article to FAR, so please think before voting. --Rschen7754 00:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I seriously considered the Send to FAR option, but I am not confident enough to pull the trigger at this time. However, I may be if there is not significant progress in 10 days. Consider the above discourse a last chance to act or start demonstrating some work before this (sadly) gets kicked to FAR.  VC  23:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The most pressing issues have been addressed, and I believe we have an article that meets the FA standards, even if barely. The article is not perfect, but at 11 months into this ACR, I doubt that there is enough momentum to keep making changes, and I think it meets the standards. --Rschen7754 20:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (if this even counts). This article has seen substantial changes in the last year, and all major deficiencies have been fixed. Most of the remaining concerns are just would-be-nice-to-haves or polishing. I think that the most pressing concern people had, which is that this article could be sent to FAR, has been allayed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After the rewrite of the route description and the fixing up of sources in the history section, among other things, I think this article is back up to modern FA standards. TCN7JM 21:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to close—as Scott says, we're at a stage of minor polishing now. Anything additional to be done is minor, and the article now meets modern expectations of a FA. This ACR no longer needs to remain open to accomplish the minor polishing left to be done. Imzadi 1979 → 21:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/Kansas_Turnpike&oldid=1140109227"