Talk:George Washington Memorial Parkway

Why ", Virginia"? (proposed page move)

Why is "Virginia" in the article name? Are there any other George Washington Memorial Parkways elsewhere? If not, then why not follow the convention of other parkway article titles, and leave off the location?

I propose a move to the current redirect: George Washington Memorial Parkway

— Eoghanacht ^talk 17:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I moved it. George Washington Memorial Parkway, Virginia is now a redirect, and I fixed all double redirects. — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

USMC War Memorial

I've driven the northern section of the road and you cannot see the USMC War Memorial from the road. Yet there is a picture on the article page of the USMC War Memorial. It is close, but you need to cross over to US110 at the Arlington Cemetary/Memorial Bridge exit to get there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.237.230 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

The article currently does not use {{infobox road}} and has a NRHP infobox instead. Can infobox road be used for the important information about the road, as called for by WP:USRD, and the NRHP infobox be more used for dates and information concering that facet of the road? ---Dough4872 04:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point of having 2 infoboxes in the same article. However, infobox road is probably the more appropriate of the two, as the information it will display is more relevant to this article. If you implement this, (i.e. a single infobox but changing to the road infobox) please insure that any information that is in the current infobox is preserved in some form. (i.e. adding it to the prose of the article).Dave (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

File:USMC War Memorial Night.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:USMC War Memorial Night.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

The following things need attention in the article at this time:

1. The {{infobox road}} needs to be fixed to indicate the two sections of the roadway correctly; currently it is using the space for the northern terminus to list all of the junctions for the northern section of the roadway.
   1. The map below the two infoboxes can be moved into the infobox road.
   2. Personally, I would ditch the second infobox and move any non-duplicated information over to the other one.
   3. The second infobox lists a more specific date than the first one.
   4. The visitor information can be moved to the text and the rest can be discarded as redundant or unnecessary.
2. A "Route description" section can be formed by making the "Southern section", "Northern section", and "Clara Barton Parkway" sections as subsections (in that order).
   1. The "Previously proposed connection" should be moved into a "History section" and combined with the current "Administrative history" section.
   2. The whole article should read in south-to-north order except the history, which should be in chronological order.
3. The bulleted list in the "Administrative history" section should be removed or integrated into the text of the "Route description" section.
4. The junction list should be switched over to the templates with updated location information.
   1. Since most of the listed junctions are interchanges, I would retitle this as an exit list and note which aren't interchanges.
   2. There are some hyphens in use where we should have en dashes for consistency.
   3. The MOS:RJL-required footer is missing, as are distances.
5. Personally, with some decent expansion of the lead, RD and History sections, the photo gallery below the junction list table could be removed and the photos moved into the body of the article. Removing the second infobox will free up space to move photos up into the article as well.
6. Additional citations are needed since most of the article lacks any footnotes. The two that are present are poorly formatted as well, and the second isn't really needed once the junction list is redone properly with better sources.

Imzadi 1979 → 22:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Leased land in Alexandria

There was a claim (tagged with a "citation needed") claiming that "A majority of the park along the Alexandria shore line is also leased land." That seems untrue. The NRHP Registration Form for the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway (1981, Item 7, pp. 1-2) states "North of First Street the highway returns to the full jurisdiction of the United States..." To my mind, this makes the ownership clear: All shoeeline parkland in Alexandria claimed by the GWMP is federally owned, not leased. One might ask whether Daingerfield Island (formerly Pearson's Island, and no longer an island for that matter) is federally owned, or just federally administered. The Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens Small Area Plan - City of Alexandria, City of Alexandria, 1992, p. 1 (as amended through 10/16/1999) clearly states that Daingerfield Island is federally owned. Since Daingerfield Island is the only conceivable "Alexandria shore line" which the GWMP passes by or through, it seems clear that this is all federally owned land and not merely leased. I removed the uncited claim on this basis. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Washington Memorial Parkway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304025559/http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/2009/AADT_US_Federal_2009.pdf to http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/2009/AADT_US_Federal_2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116195328/http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedfiles/historic/haq/haqsum99.pdf to http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedfiles/historic/haq/haqsum99.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)