Talk:U.S. Route 412 in Oklahoma

History —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 412 in Oklahoma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 05:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is quite the long article you have here. I will review it, but not until later this week. –TCN7JM 05:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, let's start with one or two opening comments.

Lead

• " A 504.11 miles (811.29 km) section..." The unit should be singular and a dash should be present between the number and the unit.
  • Whoops, overlooked that. Fixed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Route description

The Panhandle

• Nothing to comment on.

Northwest Oklahoma

• I've never really seen a "(see history)" note before. Are they common/accepted?
  • MOS doesn't really seem to forbid it, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section_links. You might want to check with Imzadi1979 or someone though to find out if this specific construct is acceptable, though I can't really find any reason why it wouldn't be. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Along this stretch, it crosses the Beaver River for the third and final time, though this time it has since become the North Canadian River." This sentence confuses me, as I can't really tell what the last part means.
  • It is trying to convey that sometime between the second and the third crossing, the Beaver River changes names to the North Canadian. It's the same river, though—see Beaver River (Oklahoma). I'm not really sure of a way to reword this though; suggestions?
    • I'm having trouble coming up with anything better. I guess we'll just leave it. –TCN7JM 03:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Northeast Oklahoma

• "interchange with SH-97 and SH-51, the later of which joins US-64/US-41..." later → latter
• "northwest corner of the Inner Disperal Loop (IDL)..." The is used before IDL later in the paragraph, so this helps fix a consistency error, too.
  • Both fixed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

History

• Does Mr. Murphy have a first name?
  • Probably not. It's against state law for transportation officials to have first names in Oklahoma. In all seriousness, the source cited doesn't mention his first name, and scrounging through the mastheads of period highway maps shows no Murphys. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• "US-412 Scenic, which was later redesignated US-412 Alternate..." When?
  • Relatively recently, but I have no idea how to pin the date down. The state map is of no use, as it has always shown Scenic 412 as Alternate 412. The only way I knew it had changed is because User:US 71 took some photos of the new signs. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure on whether or not this is required, but I always cite the last sentence with the newest state map.
• I'm not seeing anything about pavement. I'd be surprised if they designated a US Highway on an unpaved route as late as '88, but you should probably still mention it.
  • I'm pretty sure that by 1988 pavement was a necessary part of U.S. highway standards. It'd be like mentioning an Interstate was always paved. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Tolls

• "As of 2012" should be "As of 2013," shouldn't it? Not really your fault, you sent this to GAN last year :p.
  • Updated. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• <sidenote>Wow, that's such a huge discount with Pikepass. I'd sure go bankrupt without Pikepass.</sidenote>

Spurs

• Great job on this section.
  • Thanks. I'm probably going to use this model for all future GAs. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Junction list

• If I remember correctly, there should be semicolons between notes, not commas.
• The "Eastern end of SH-136 concurrency" row is uncolored. (Mile 94.6)
• Same with the "Western end of SH-15 concurrency" row. (Mile 215.8)
• A terminus should be mentioned in the SH-412P row. (Mile 440.6)
  • All corrected except the semicolons. User:Rschen7754/How to review road articles recommends semicolons, but doesn't give any sort of guidance on what policy or MOS page this comes from. I would argue that commas are more appropriate, because grammatically, semicolons are reserved for separating clauses that could stand as complete sentences. "Western end of SH-3 concurrency" and the like aren't complete sentences. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, but the row at mile 394.8 uses a semicolon. Might wanna fix that. –TCN7JM 07:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Nice catch. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

References

• One more comment before I start the references later. I can't help but notice that there's no traffic data in this article. Is there any data for Oklahoma?
  • There may be somewhere on the ODOT website. I'll look tomorrow. Oklahoma articles generally don't include it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Okay, then. We'll just leave it. The references look A-Okay! Checking some references for verifiability or plagiarism, I found no errors. This too shall pass.

Final verdict

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: My concerns have been addressed. I feel this meets the Good Article criteria.

   Pass/Fail:

Widen/Upgrade

What are everyone's thoughts on the terms widen or upgrade when referring to the highway going from 2 to 4 lanes or similar situation? My feeling is that upgrade should be avoided, since it is a term of opinion, where widen is just a fact. Perhaps the capacity is "upgraded", but that also means the cost is "downgraded" for instance, and so it seems to me that widen or something of the sort would be better. Looking through other highway articles, it seems these terms are generally used interchangeably at the moment. Engineers often call their designs upgrades no matter what, but that's just your good old propaganda to gain support for a project as Strongtowns has detailed. Thanks! Znns (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)