Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/2013
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Pennsylvania Turnpike
California State Route 52
California State Route 282
Interstate 96
California State Route 67
Pennsylvania Turnpike
Interstate 75 in Michigan
Michigan State Trunkline Highway System
Creek Turnpike
California State Route 75
Pennsylvania Route 652
Washington State Route 104
Interstate 37
Mitchell Freeway
Interstate 496
Ohio State Route 161
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 |
---|
Ohio State Route 161 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: Here's the peer review, that no one responded to.
- Nominated by: —– 23:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 23:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Review by Fredddie
OK, will begin reviewing right away. –Fredddie™ 23:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
First of all, welcome to ACR, CycloneIsaac! Normally, I go line-by-line and review thoroughly, but there are a number of things that need to be addressed before we can consider doing that.
- The lead is far too short. Ideally, it should be at least a full paragraph longer than what you are presenting. However, there are no hard and fast rules for writing a lead so others may disagree with me.
- The route description is, to be blunt, not very good.
- It's too short. Again, another paragraph that same size would be nice.
- It needs to be reorganized. If I were to rewrite this, the first paragraph would be from the west end to I-270. The second would describe between the two I-270 junctions; the third east of I-270. Each paragraph should be about the same length.
- Word repetition is pretty bad.
- Interchange 13 times
- Intersection appears 9 times
- Concurrency 6 times
- Freeway 4 times
- I am not saying you should never use these words, but they should not be used in consecutive sentences; especially not FIVE sentences in a row as is the case with interchange(s).
- It does not appear that there was much research put into the history of SR 161.
- With just a little bit of digging, you should be able to find the exact day SR 161 was designated. A trip to the DOT library in Columbus would be a great place to start. I'm not saying they will, but they should have a dedicated file for every route.
- There is a significant lack of sources that are not the DOT or DOT-related. Maps are generally fine to use, but at ACR we really need to demonstrate notability. It is almost impossible to do that with maps alone. It's time to go to the library and look through old newspapers. Any library worth its salt will have made an attempt to make their microfiche archive searchable.
- The junction list is a bright spot, but I helped out with that part in earlier stages of the article's progression.
With all this, I have to oppose this article attaining A-Class as-is. Please don't be discouraged. This is a stepping stone to improving your writing and researching skills. I am confident that all of the people who will comment after me would give you some tips. –Fredddie™ 00:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
I will review this article. --Rschen7754 02:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I will have to Oppose this as well. The main issue is that this fails the FAC criteria for "comprehensive", as not all of the information that can be reliably sourced has been found and included in the article (see WP:WIAFA). Notably the history is only sourced to maps; it provides no information on why the road was built.
I have to concur with the comments about the lead, and there is no map. The route description needs work as well. Again, as mentioned above, don't be discouraged, as GA in itself is an accomplishment; I would work on getting more practice with GA before working towards ACR. --Rschen7754 08:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
- A map of the route should be added to the article.
- The lead of the article is awfully short.
- The route description is very dry. More detail could be added pertaining to physical surroundings and attractions so it doesn't read as simply a listing of intersections and towns.
- The prose has several awkwardly-worded sentences such as "SR 161 starts off in Mutual as Milford Road, at a T-intersection at SR 29", "There would be no more major intersections until SR 161 has reached Plain City, as it meets U.S. Route 42 (US 42).", and "The next two interchanges, Hamilton Road and New Albany Road, uses diamond interchanges."
- I am sure there is more detail that can be added to the history about the construction of the SR 161 freeway. When was ground broken for the freeway? How much did it cost? Was there any opposition or controversy? A little hard research may need to be done here.
As such, this article has several issues before it can seriously be considered for A-class. Therefore, I will have to oppose. I would suggest doing some more research, do some copyediting, and expand the article as suggested before renominating it here again. Dough4872 19:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
D21 road (Croatia)
County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan)
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 |
---|
County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: Site of the first highway centerline in the US, I present to you CR 492. (Scott5114 was there this past summer, btw.) Anyway, I know there aren't photos of the roadway, but that's also being rectified as soon as possible.
- Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 21:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 21:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Review by TCN7JM
Review by TCN7JM
|
---|
It's nice to see a CR at ACR. I'll go ahead and take a look later on. TCN7JM 21:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Only one comment here: I've never heard of a terminus being on another highway. Maybe use a different preposition? More to come, though I must ask if it is at all possible for a map to be made. No GIS data for county roads? TCN7JM 21:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
That's all I have to say. TCN7JM 18:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
|
- Okey dokes, you've fixed that sentence. I support. TCN7JM 01:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Image review by SounderBruce
- File:Michigan 492 Marquette County.svg - PD, uploaded by author and is ineligible for copyright
- File:M-15 centerline 1917.jpg - PD, released to PD by author via OTRS (confirmed)
Without a map or some modern pictures of the highway, I'm not sure if I can approve the article. SounderBruce 21:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Confirmed --Rschen7754 23:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- A map should be made, even if it's just using the KML. --Rschen7754 01:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Map added. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- A map should be made, even if it's just using the KML. --Rschen7754 01:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Comments:
Replies:
|
- Support - The article looks good now. Dough4872 22:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754 |
---|
Since I won't be doing a full review on either of the non-US ones that are currently up I'll take this one. --Rschen7754 09:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Should be a support after it's done. --Rschen7754 00:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 19:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Spotcheck by TCN7JM
Spotcheck by TCN7JM
|
---|
I am beginning a spotcheck immediately. The source numbers are as of this revision. I am reviewing the following sources:
This will be done within the next couple of hours. TCN7JM 03:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC) |
- And I'm out of adjectives, so, uh...Support. TCN7JM 04:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Interstate 196
Kwinana Freeway
Kansas Turnpike
U.S. Route 8
U.S. Route 141
List of Recreational Roads in Texas
I'm going to be bold and close this review. The nominator has made no attempt to address the outstanding opposes in a month, and suspending the review would not be an optimal outcome here. --Rschen7754 09:27, 13 October 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 |
---|
List of Recreational Roads in Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: As a part of my attempt to get Recreational Roads in Texas to a good topic, I've decided to go ahead and try to nominate this to be the first A-class assessed list. I'm not sure if this is allowed, but per this discussion and this one, it seemed like nominating the list at ACR was suggested instead of going straight for FLC.
- Background aside, here is the main article for Texas' Recreational Road System. The state's smallest highway system (out of 10, counting FMs and RMs separately and not including special routes or toll roads), it contains just 10 designated routes and 1 former route. Four of the routes have separate, stand-alone articles, while the other were all merged from probably the shortest good articles ever. ACR and FLC comments appreciated.
- Nominated by: Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 22:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 08:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Image Check by Nbound
Image Check by Nbound
|
---|
I will further hold off on giving a formal support until others have looked into this list article first (and how we will assess it). As the is the first list here and therefore a guinea pig, I dont not want to support prematurely. -- Nbound (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
As currently stands:
|
- Neutral - Someone more familiar with US shielding/copyright should take over. (Otherwise it would have been a tentative support pending reviews) -- Nbound (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Update
I'm going to be on a wiki-break from the 22nd until the 27th, and will have no Internet access, so I'll be unable to respond to any comments for a while. Sorry for any inconveniences. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
I will review the article. --Rschen7754 04:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I was planning on giving this a full review, but there still remains a grand total of only one secondary source, with a very passing mention of the system. All we have here are raw statistics, which is useful, don't get me wrong. But we have no clue as to why the system was built or anything like that. Without that information, which was specifically asked for repeatedly and by multiple reviewers at the last FLC, I don't think it's worth my time to do a full review. --Rschen7754 09:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Review by Fredddie
I looked over the article's changes from the last time I reviewed the article, and I still don't see any serious effort made to add secondary sources. Of the 55 references in use, 36 of them are TxDOT (including its predecessor) and 11 of them are online maps (Google and Bing). That leaves 8 references that are not obviously DOT- or map-related. Let's review them.
- Parent, Laurence (2008). Official Guide to Texas State Parks and Historic Sites (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-292-71726-8.
- If it had a section about the highway system, I would expect this book to be cited more than once.
- A.I.D. Associates (1972). Sam Rayburn Reservoir and Dam B (Map). Cartography by A.I.D. Associates (1972 ed.).
- Map.
- National Park Service (2013). Amistad National Recreation Area Map (Map). Cartography by National Park Service. Retrieved June 4, 2013.
- Map.
- Shell Oil Company (1956). Highway Map of Texas (Map). 1 in=26 mi. Cartography by H.M. Gousha Company (1956 ed.). Section K7.
- Map.
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (August 2004). Proctor Lake (Map). Cartography by U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved June 23, 2012.
- Map.
- Staff. "O. H. Ivie Reservoir". Handbook of Texas Online. Texas State Historical Association. Retrieved June 4, 2013.
- This doesn't mention the RM designation at all, so it can rightfully be tagged
{{Notinsource}}
.
- This doesn't mention the RM designation at all, so it can rightfully be tagged
- Kerr, Sharon (July 18, 2007). "Hutchinson, Cornyn introduce federal corridor". Jasper Newsboy. Retrieved September 6, 2012.
- Doesn't really mention the system, just RE 255, and not even very well.
- Staff. "Texas Update". A Multi-State Coalition for Transportation Improvements. Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition. Retrieved September 5, 2012.
- Doesn't really cite anything about the system.
Turns out four of the ones that weren't so obvious were maps. So let's recap. 55 sources and all but four of them are the DOT or a map. None of the four are used particularly well, either. Now, I understand the value of maps, but they can't really tell you much about the system – just where the highway is.
At the last FLC, I asked for secondary sources. You found four, but they're not very good. I suggest finding more. Until then, I still oppose. –Fredddie™ 04:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
Tonkin Highway
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 |
---|
Tonkin Highway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: Welcome to Tonkin Highway in Perth, Western Australia, a controlled access highway* with more than a dozen sets of traffic lights. It is an important route connecting Perth Airport to the city's north-eastern and south-eastern suburbs. While the road itself is in the process of being upgraded into a modern gateway into WA, I believe that recent upgrades to the article merit consideration for an A-Class rating.
- * Technically, a highway with control of access... but I thought I'd have a little fun with the nominators comments - Evad37 (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Nominated by: Evad37 (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Review by Fredddie
Review by Fredddie
|
---|
|
That's all. Overall it's a great article, but with a few tweaks I don't see why this can't become a featured article. –Fredddie™ 23:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Support. I am satisfied with the changes I requested. –Fredddie™ 18:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
|
---|
I will review this article. --Rschen7754 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC) As you're probably aware, I tend to break my reviews up into several parts, so here goes:
Now that Nbound is unable to review this article, I guess I'll go. I don't think I need to re-review what has already been done, and that part of the review will still stand even though it has been hatted. --Rschen7754 04:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
|
- Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 03:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Comments by Nbound
Extended content
| |||
---|---|---|---|
In good faith I am re-posting the opening post of this section:
|
Got too much stuff going on IRL to do this any time soon - consider this review slot open. -- Nbound (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Comments:
Actually theres quite a few good reasons why this should not be done, but the main ones are:
-- Nbound (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
|
- Support - Article looks good now. Dough4872 13:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Media check by TCN7JM
I will conduct an image check now. TCN7JM 04:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- File:Tonkin Highway route map.png – OpenStreetMap OBdL
- File:Tonkin Hwy 005 S Noranda Matthews.jpg – CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported, good caption
- File:TonkinHighway.JPG – GFDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0, good caption
- File:Tonkin hwy sth end gnangarra.JPG – CC-BY-SA 3.0 AU, good caption
- File:Tonkin hwy gosnells gnangarra-115.jpg – CC-BY-SA 2.5 AU, good caption
- File:Tonkin Highway, Redcliffe Bridge to Great Eastern Highway.ogv – CC0 1.0 Universal, good caption
- File:Tonkin n Leach hwy 2013.webm – CC-BY-SA 2.5 AU, good caption
Support - All good. TCN7JM 04:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Spotcheck by Rschen7754
|
---|
I will do the spotcheck, checking 9 sources. --Rschen7754 01:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Spotcheck done, waiting for fixes. --Rschen7754 05:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC) |
Baltimore–Washington Parkway
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 |
---|
Baltimore–Washington Parkway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Demote
- Nominator's comments: This is a current A-Class article, but I have some concerns with it that need examination. The previous review is at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Baltimore–Washington Parkway.
- Nominated by: Rschen7754 01:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- First comment occurred:
Review by Rschen7754 |
---|
More later. --Rschen7754 01:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
30 days has passed, notifications given. --Rschen7754 10:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
|
- Keep. I doubt that the article would pass at FAC due to comprehensive concerns, but I also don't think that it's so bad that it needs to be demoted right away. I also think that continuing this ACR will probably not result in substantial improvements. In other words, largely the same as my +1 on Kansas Turnpike. --Rschen7754 03:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Ontario Highway 55
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 |
---|
Ontario Highway 55 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: Highway 55 is a relatively minor former highway in the Niagara Peninsula. I feel the article is well written, well sourced and comprehensive, meriting a promotion to A-Class status.
- Nominated by: Floydian τ ¢ 20:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 02:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
I will review the article. Dough4872 02:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Comments:
@Dough4872: have the concerns been addressed enough for a support? --Rschen7754 10:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
|
- Support - Concerns have been addressed. Dough4872 00:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
|
---|
I will review this article after Dough. --Rschen7754 09:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
|
- Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 18:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Review by Evad37
Review
|
---|
I will review this article - Evad37 [talk] 07:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Major intersections/References/External links – no issues (The last two points depend on whether reliable sources can be found, if you can't find any then that's fine) That's all - otherwise a short but good read. - Evad37 [talk] 08:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
|
- Support - Evad37 [talk] 00:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Image check by Rschen7754
- File:Ontario 55 map.svg - please indicate sources.
- File:Ontario 55.png - PD in Canada.
- File:Highway 55.png - CC-BY-SA 2.0 from Flickr.
- File:NiagaraRR55.png - needs more information as to how this design is PD (it's not CC-BY-SA). --Rschen7754 00:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- All fixed. I've made the assumption that the RR55 shield is covered by {{PD-simple}}, but barring that it didn't exist any earlier than 1970 and would have to be fair use for this article. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, image check Done. --Rschen7754 21:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- All fixed. I've made the assumption that the RR55 shield is covered by {{PD-simple}}, but barring that it didn't exist any earlier than 1970 and would have to be fair use for this article. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Spotcheck by Rschen7754
- Source 15 - good on V and CP.
- Source 8 - does not cover Iroquois Road.
- Due to the small number of sources, this is probably enough. --Rschen7754 04:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Source 8 was more to back up the rest of that blurb, but now that you've pointed it out, I added a source for that section of Highway 8 being known as the Iroquois Road. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, Done and ready to close. --Rschen7754 04:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
U.S. Route 45 in Michigan
- 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 |
---|
U.S. Route 45 in Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: This is the last of the interstate (lowercase "i") highways in the UP of Michigan to come to ACR. There isn't a lot to say, so the article should be an easy review.
- Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 07:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 00:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Overall, a decent article. Dough4872 00:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
|
- Support - Article looks good now. Dough4872 02:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Review by TCN7JM
Review by TCN7JM
|
---|
I will review this after Dough's review is completed. TCN7JM 02:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
All in all, this is a great article. Doesn't need much for promotion. TCN7JM 04:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
|
- Support --TCN7JM 05:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Non-review comment
I see we have a photo of downtown Ontonogan, but is there any chance we can get a photo of the actual terminus, preferably one with the END 45 marker if there is one? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have a couple of inquiries out there for relicensing requests on Flickr. One was for a photo of the wooden sign at the terminus (much like US 41's Copper Harbor terminus). Maybe a little drive is order though to get the US 45 ENDS marker assembly photographed if I can't get a photo relicensed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Review by Floydian + image/source check
|
---|
Review, image and source check by FloydianConsider this review to be a source check
-- Floydian τ ¢ 06:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
|
- Support - Floydian τ ¢ 15:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
Ontario Highway 61
- 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.
Passed with 3 net support votes (3 support, 0 oppose). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
Ontario Highway 61 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: Highway 61 is an important historical highway near Thunder Bay, connecting to the northern end of Minnesota State Highway 61 towards Duluth. The highway and its corresponding international crossing were originally built without government approval or funding, providing the only road-access at the time to the Thunder Bay region of the province. I believe this article covers the important history and other facets of this route and therefore merits promotion to A-Class.
- Nominated by: Floydian τ ¢ 20:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
|
---|
I will review this article. --Rschen7754 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
|
- Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 00:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Comments:
|
- Support - Article looks good now. Dough4872 04:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Review by Evad37
Review
|
---|
That's all - Evad37 [talk] 02:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
|
- Support, issues resolved - Evad37 [talk] 06:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Image review by Rschen7754
- Pigeon River Truss.png - PD Canada
- Outlaw Bridge.png - PD US
- Ontario 61 map.svg - GIS sources?
- Ontario 61.svg - PD simple
- Highway 61 north of Pigeon River, 1955.jpg - PD Canada
Rschen7754 11:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Added source info to the map. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done --Rschen7754 21:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Spotcheck by Rschen7754
- Source 9: meets V and CP.
- Source 21: last part is missing, though I can't tell if the original article had any more information. --Rschen7754 21:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Which part do you mean is missing, regarding Arthur Street? The original article was a bit longer, but I can't recall if it mentioned that. One of the maps used as sources in the article could always be used to verify the old routing compared to today. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Map ref added for extra verification. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, Done and ready to close. --Rschen7754 22:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
Interstate 805
- 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 |
---|
Interstate 805 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: Finally back on this side of ACR... this is a significant Interstate in the San Diego area, and with the research it should be good for FA material.
- Nominated by: Rschen7754 08:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Spotcheck by TCN7JM
Spotcheck by TCN7JM
|
---|
I reviewed this article at GAN literally just earlier tonight, so I can't review it here. I'll do the spotcheck instead. Since this article has 91 sources, I will review the set maximum of 20 sources. Since the majority of them are newspaper sources, I will request the nominator to email them to me later, but I have not yet decided which ones I will review. TCN7JM 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The numbers accompanying the sources are accurate as of this revision:
Everything's a-okay so far. I'll review the remaining ten sources at a later time. TCN7JM 03:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This is all the more I have time for now. TCN7JM 11:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Phew. Well, got that over with. I'll leave this on hold for ya. TCN7JM 04:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Support TCN7JM 13:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Comments:
Overall, a decent article with very few issues. Dough4872 03:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC) |
- Support - Issues resolved. Dough4872 04:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Review by Evad37
Review
|
---|
{{Plainlist| * <line 1> * <line 2> ... }}
Otherwise, the article looks good :) - Evad37 (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Support - Evad37 [talk] 10:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Image review by Evad37
- File:California Interstate 805.svg: CC-BY-SA 3.0, caption is good, but alt text missing
- File:I-805 Northbound at CA 905.jpg: PD by author, caption is good, alt text is missing
- File:Interstate 805-5 Split.jpg: CC-BY-SA 2.0, caption is good, alt text is missing
- File:Miramar op 805.jpg: GNU FDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0/CC-BY-2.0
but lacks source info, caption is good, alt text is missing - File:I-805 (CA).svg (infobox):
The source field of the information template should be the Caltrans drawing, and licensing should reflect why it is a free image given that the drawing is the source – is it a MUTCD PD image, or is it some other reason/permission? Does it need a trademark warning?PD-MUTCD-CA. Caption is good, alt text is good - File:I-5.svg (navbox): PD-MUTCD, alt text is missing
Concerns noted above - Evad37 [talk] 05:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Alt text is not a requirement for FAC any longer. The other issues have been addressed. --Rschen7754 05:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- It may not be a requirement, but should probably still be added for accessibility per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images: "For images that link to their image description page (which is nearly all images on Wikipedia), the alt text cannot be blank nor should the alt parameter be absent. This is because a screen reader, in order to describe the purpose of the link, will default to reading out the image filename when no alt text is available. This is usually not helpful."
- Anyway, the images are now otherwise okay, Image check done - Evad37 [talk] 05:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Review by Scott5114
- In most states, counties are listed in the infobox. I do not know if California follows a different standard here, but I have received this recommendation on my most recent ACR.
- Done; most of CA doesn't have them, but there's no reason not to add them. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Remember that the lead is meant to give an executive summary of the article, and thus should be readable on its own. Thus, the term "dual freeway" should either be defined in the lead, obviating the need for someone to go hunt in the article for a definition, or the sentence phrased to avoid that construction.
- Added a link. I really don't think that it can be avoided without either adding in a bunch of extra stuff, or removing a critical detail. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is currently a bit confusing whether this is a local/express setup or just a divided highway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Reworded. --Rschen7754 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is currently a bit confusing whether this is a local/express setup or just a divided highway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Added a link. I really don't think that it can be avoided without either adding in a bunch of extra stuff, or removing a critical detail. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- The sentence about I-805 serving as a divide between rich and poor in Chula Vista seems oddly placed. If it could be expanded to a full paragraph, I would say it should be moved to the history section (since it is a characteristic of the highway observed at one point in time, and is not an inherent feature of the road), and if not, I would recommend dropping it altogether. Either way, it would probably fit better in the article about Chula Vista.
- I see your point, but there's not a good place in the history to put it. I've changed how it was worded in the RD to make it mesh better. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful with "the city" in the first paragraph of the route description. The phrase is used variously to refer to San Diego, Chula Vista, and National City, which could confuse less observant readers.
- Cleaned up. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- The information about the Hazard Bridge feels out of place, considering I-805 only passes under it.
- That article actually redirects here. It's also a quite significant bridge architecturally, I believe. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- By June, houses along the route were being sold in the North Park area... This reads like the houses from the freeway route were being dragged up to North Park and sold there. Consider something like By June, houses in North Park that were along the proposed route of the freeway were being sold. If sources support it, clarify that Caltrans was the one buying the houses.
- Reworded. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- In May 1967, bidding began after construction had been delayed by that of I-5 and I-8 which had been given higher priority. This sentence is somewhat unclear. Did I-5 and I-8's bidding or construction cause the delay? A comma is needed after I-8. You may want to specify both I-5 and I-8 if both of them were given higher priority.
- Reworded. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- The R.E. Hazard and W.F. Maxwell Companies... any relation to the Roscoe Hazard the bridge was named after?
- Kind of doubt it, papers didn't say much, and he can't hold those two jobs at once due to COI stuffs. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- If the winning bid was $20.9 million, where did the $27.5 million figure come from?
- Well, that was what they budgeted for the job, but nobody bids that much of course. Clarified a bit. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- ...I-805 from north of Friars Road to north of what was then US 395 in mid-1969, which would become SR 163. May be better to say In mid-1969, bidding was to begin on 3.2 miles (5.1 km) of I-805 from north of Friars Road to present day SR 163, which was US 395 at the time or similar. This places "mid-1969" with the phrase that it modifies, instead of making it look like the mid-1969 date just applies to it being US 395.
- Might be desirable to expand on what exactly Nixon's order was supposed to affect. Was it a budgetary thing?
- By March 1970, the original section between Home Avenue and near I-8 was almost complete, and the Mission Valley portion extending north of US 395 as well as from Otay Valley Road and J Street in Chula Vista were still under construction and A second border crossing in the San Ysidro area was proposed near the Playas de Tijuana area, that would be accessible from I-805, although another alternative was considered near Brown Field; a formal study was commissioned in August: Both of these sentences share the same problem. They have too many clauses, and therefore it is easy to get lost and not follow what they are saying. In both cases, the remedy is to split them into less complex sentences.
- E.C. Young, Young and Sons, Inc., and A.A. Baxter Corporation: may be better to rearrange these so that you don't have Young twice in a row. If you list them alphabetically, you can put and between E.C. Young and Young and Sons, which, with the Oxford comma, would alleviate any confusion.
- Fixed. --Rschen7754 00:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- and was to be opened from El Cajon Boulevard...
- Fixed. --Rschen7754 00:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- There are some minor punctuation issues throughout the history that may need a second look.
- Not sure what you mean, could you be more specific? --Rschen7754 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Does mention of the ineligibility to be a scenic highway merely confirm that Chula Vista was unsuccessful at obtaining the designation, or did it preclude them from getting it?
- Removing entirely; not very useful. --Rschen7754 00:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Opening of the SR-94 connectors and the cost information are separate topics that should be covered in separate sentences.
- The word complete is used a lot in the Construction section. If possible, use synonyms to cut down on the number of usages.
- There were reports of motorists driving around on the closed freeway: "driving around" seems a bit informal.
- Fixed. --Rschen7754 22:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you get a chance, a photo of the Mission Valley Viaduct would enhance the article significantly, considering it was recognized with awards. Likewise for the Eastgate Mall bridge.
- Hoping to do this next week. --Rschen7754 22:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- What is the "Stargazer"? A bridge? A statue? A fish? USS Stargazer (NCC-2893)?
- Fixed. --Rschen7754 00:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Characterizing a billboard as a [form] of artwork along the highway is kind of weird.
- Well, art is subjective... and has aesthetic qualities. --Rschen7754 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- at the northern end of I-805
- Fixed. --Rschen7754 22:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Again, "dual freeway" is rather confusing; it would be more clear to explain exactly what this consists of. One could reasonably interpret it to mean a divided highway.
- Added a bit more to clarify. --Rschen7754 22:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Are the February 2013 express lanes HOT lanes or more "dual freeway"?
- Neither; fixed. --Rschen7754 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Top quality work as always, just needs a little more polish. The only question is why am I helping CA catch up to OK on the leaderboard... :P —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- All done. --Rschen7754 02:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good. As for the punctuation, it was more an issue of a missing comma here and there; you should probably have an experienced copyeditor look at it with fresh eyes before sending to FAC. Other than that, all of the major issues have been addressed, so I will support this article for A-class. Well done! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
Closing notice - The article has been passed. Good work! - Floydian τ ¢ 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
New York State Route 28A
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 |
---|
New York State Route 28A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: Well, well, well. It's be an insane long amount of time since I had my last ACR and I have several articles within close range of being nominated. I have every intent in hurrying this to FAC as it passes (if it passes) and its been really too long for me. Mitch32(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.) 21:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nominated by: Mitch32(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.) 21:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 04:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Review by Fredddie
Resolved issues by Fredddie
|
---|
I will begin reviewing this article. –Fredddie™ 04:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
|
- Support. Looking good now. –Fredddie™ 05:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
|
---|
I can pick up the second review, though there may be a bit of a delay. --Rschen7754 07:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Rschen7754 04:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
|
- Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 04:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Image review by Dough4872
- File:NY Route 28A map.svg - PD-self, has GIS sources.
- File:NY 28A along Ashokan Reservoir.jpg - CC-BY-SA-3.0
- File:NY 28A at Monument Road.jpg - cc-by-sa-2.0
- Captions are fine.
- Support - Images look good. Dough4872 03:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Review by Admrboltz
|
- Support --AdmrBoltz 23:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Spotcheck by Rschen7754
- Source 7: source doesn't say that it was diverted onto NY 28/A specifically.
- Source 9: Good on V and CP.
- Source 11: not seeing the part about "The order was never lifted...". Perhaps I'm missing it?
- Source 22: Good on V and CP.
- Source 23: Good on V and CP. --Rschen7754 21:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Changed 7 and 11, canning the parts in question. The one attached to 7 was assumable anyway. Mitch32(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.) 23:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
U.S. Route 6 in Iowa
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 |
---|
U.S. Route 6 in Iowa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: It's been a while since I've been to ACR with my own article, so here goes. A few things I want to mention first.
- I am acutely aware of the lack of pictures. I will work on this while the ACR is open.
- I have been asked in private to make markers for the auto trails.
- There has been a push to get US 6's historical route signed. So far it's been one guy making the push and only in eastern Iowa, so it hasn't had a lot of coverage outside his website (SPS problems). It should still be mentioned.
- Nominated by: –Fredddie™ 02:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 02:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Review by Nbound
Review by Nbound
|
---|
Lead
RD
History
This should be safe to consider a pre-FAC goal. -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
General
For the most part the article is quite interesting and informative -- Nbound (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Support - That mini-lead with pics would be good prior to any FAC attempt -- Nbound (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Comments:
|
- Support - Concerns addressed. Dough4872 04:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Review by TCN7JM
Review by TCN7JM
| ||
---|---|---|
Alright, after all that nonsense, I'm still planning to review this article. TCN7JM 20:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I will continue to review this later. TCN7JM 17:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC) After further review, those are all the comments I have. This will be put on hold. TCN7JM 17:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Support - My concerns with the article have been addressed. TCN7JM 21:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Image review by Rschen7754
Image review by Rschen7754
|
---|
|
Spotcheck by Rschen7754
|
---|
I can pick up the spotcheck whenever the time comes. --Rschen7754 10:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
@Fredddie: were you still planning on adding material to this article? --Rschen7754 22:46, 15 December 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.
U.S. Route 16 in Michigan
Toolbox |
---|
U.S. Route 16 in Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: Grand River Avenue dates back to before Michigan's territorial days, and after I replaced one source, I feel this merits review for A-Class.
- Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 04:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Comments:
|
- Support - Issues resolved. Dough4872 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Review / Image review by Admrboltz
Extended content
|
---|
I will do a prose check later this weekend. --AdmrBoltz 18:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Additional comments from me.
Otherwise the article looks good to go to me. --AdmrBoltz 22:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
|
- Support --AdmrBoltz 21:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- One afterthought. If the highway was in service until 1962, why not use the 1961 US Route shields, or did MSHD not place the new signs on the road before decommissioning it? --AdmrBoltz 06:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- As far as we can tell, the MSHD never adopted the 1961 specs and retained the 1948s until the 1971/73 update. Imzadi 1979 → 08:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- One afterthought. If the highway was in service until 1962, why not use the 1961 US Route shields, or did MSHD not place the new signs on the road before decommissioning it? --AdmrBoltz 06:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
|
---|
I will do review number 3. --Rschen7754 04:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Should be a support after these issues are fixed. --Rschen7754 08:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
|
- Support issues resolved, but noting the few comments above for a future FAC. --Rschen7754 16:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Spotcheck by TCN7JM
I will do the spotcheck. TCN7JM 09:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I will be checking 15 sources, the citation numbers are accurate as of this revision. TCN7JM 04:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Source 2 Good on V and P
- Source 3 Good on V and P
- Source 12 Good on V and P
- Source 13 Good on V and P
- Source 14 Good on V and P
- Source 15 Good on V and P
- Source 16 Good on V and P
- Source 17 Good on V and P
- Source 23 Good on V and P
- Source 26 Good on V and P
- Source 27 Good on V and P
- Source 33 Good on V and P
- Source 50 Good on V and P
- Source 51 Good on V and P
- Source 52 Good on V and P
Well, well, well. Flawless. I've no choice but to support. Great job. TCN7JM 04:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Promoted - Another fine piece for Michigan! - Floydian τ ¢ 05:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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.