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

Kansas Turnpike

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.

---

{{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=Kansas Turnpike}} 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)

First comment occurred: 04:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

This isn't a conventional ACR, so I'm going to note what I see offhand and the major obvious issues before doing a complete review. References 15, 46, 48, 74 are not reliable. Refs 35, 30, 66 are dead. Refs 9, 14, 29 are dead, but there is a WebCite archive available. Ref 42 is incomplete. Ref 25 has an incomplete year. References to the NBI need to be corrected; ask VC how his efforts to build a template for that are going. The template is done, although the documentation could probably be improved. Let me know if you have trouble with it.  VC  14:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Section 1.3 is really short. Section 1.4 is also short. --Rschen7754 18:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC) "In July 2011, the speed limit on most of the Kansas Turnpike was raised once again to 75 mph." uncited RD citations need to be added. --Rschen7754 04:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Comment - We should also include a MOS:RJL compliant exit list in place of the prose list of intersections. Dough4872 05:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC) As a follow-up, I fully endorse Rschen7754's concerns along with my own. If these are not fixed in a timely matter, I would advocate sending this to FAR. Dough4872 14:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I cannot conceive why any rational USRD editor would rather advocate seeing one of his project's featured articles hauled off to FAR than pitch in and help fix it to avoid such an outcome. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Reference 25 corrected. Replaced Reference 35. Reference 42 completed. References 46 and 74 removed. Reference added for 2011 speed limit increase (new ref 28). Unreliable references 15 and 48 still remain but need to be replaced as they cite information that needs to remain in the article (managed to wipe out a few instances of ref 15). Please note that this set of fixes changes most of the reference numbers. We also need a reference for the original Belle Plaine burning down. Would welcome suggestions as to what to do with section 1.3. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC) The links to current references 9 and 30, which are both for Driven by Vision: The Story of the Kansas Turnpike, are both dead. There are working links to chapters of the book at http://www.ksturnpike.com/about/history. I suggest looking through them again because they might be able to fill a lot of holes. I may do this myself if I can get myself enthusiastic about it.  VC  17:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I endorse VC's suggestion. --Rschen7754 20:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Try [1] for the dead reference 14. For reference 15 you may be able to use [2] to help. All dead links remaining are because ksturnpike.com changed its website structure around. As far as replacing the email, I'd try VC's link first and see if you can get info out of there. --Rschen7754 20:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Noting new link found: [3] Warning: popup city. --Rschen7754 18:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC) I think that the Interchanges section needs to be merged into the Route description section. Otherwise, we have this unnatural split of information; the RD is fairly incomplete by itself. --Rschen7754 19:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Also found a historical archive: [4] This article directly fails the comprehensive criterion of the FA standards. --Rschen7754 08:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC) [5] directly contradicts the email regarding exit 92; the exit is clearly there next to KS-13 (modern-day KS 177). --Rschen7754 08:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Never mind, a close-up in 1964 shows that indeed, it isn't there. Working on the other two citations of 48 (which is now 50). --Rschen7754 09:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Dough4872

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)

   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)

   I would preferably replace the map in the infobox with the one in the Route description. Dough4872 02:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

   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)

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)

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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    Your circular logic makes me dizzy. –Fredddie™ 19:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

    Yeah, I don't understand what's being suggested here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

Changes completed

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)

• 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)

Rewrite coordination

Unfortunately, large portions of this article will need to be rewritten to comply with modern USRD and FAC standards. Interested editors should sign up below: Part A of RD (TBA) - Part B of RD (TBA) - Part C of RD (TBA) - Exit list (need mileages) - –Fredddie™ Other than the missing history cites, after that we can probably do a final sweep and call it good. --Rschen7754 05:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Not exactly. There's serious holes in the history and there's other sources with information that isn't in this article. I'm significantly concerned that this may have to be sent to FAR; while we should try and see what we can do, I'm concerned. This article would not pass GA in the shape that it is in. --Rschen7754 08:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Not every day you see someone argue with themselves... What holes in the history are you finding? If we can get some tangible details as to what we're missing, we can get a better start on fixing it. If there is anyone else interested in collaborating on this article, it would be helpful to step forward, so that we can parcel out some of the work. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC) I am willing to work on the NBI references. Ideally they should be used in conjunction with the KDOT maps or other sources.  VC  18:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC) I just see details in some of the sources I've found that aren't in the article at all. --Rschen7754 18:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC) I can try to work on the RD. It'd be nice if someone could collaborate with me, though. –TCN7JM 10:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC) I can possibly help too. Dough4872 14:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC) I've started a sandbox at User:TCN7JM/Kansas Turnpike. I'm going do my portion of the rewrite there because I'm not the type to do it all at once, so it's best to sandbox it until it's done and then transfer it. TCN7JM 05:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC) I will rewrite the route description for the I-35 portion of the turnpike. Dough4872 03:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC) So I guess that means I have the I-335/I-470/I-70 half. TCN7JM 03:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Actually, I will write the route description for the I-335/I-470 portion. Dough4872 21:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Ugh...okay, just so there's no confusion, we have this figured out. Rewrite coordination is as follows for the RD: I-35 portion - Scott5114 I-335/I-470 portion - Dough4872 I-70 portion - TCN7JM TCN7JM 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC) My portion is written at User:Dough4872/sandbox2. Dough4872 21:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC) I took the liberty of doing a bit of prose tune-up and added some information that is in the article now that was removed from the rewritten version. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I should point out there are some details that could be added here: the crossing of the Neosho River north of Emporia (probably a minor stream at this point but it becomes a major river as it heads south, so it's worth noting), and mentions of the no-access crossings with K-99 and K-37. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Route description rewrite is done. All sections are complete and sandboxes have been copied to the article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Brycecordry's two cents

Hatting off-topic discussion. --Rschen7754 07:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The I-70 exit number change needs to be addressed, because we were instructed to take exit 356, and the numbers jumped from 410 to 224 over a three mile path. So we turned back and back, until a police officer pulled us over, and he redirected us west along the turnpike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brycecordry (talk • contribs) This article isn't about I-70. It's about the Kansas Turnpike. –TCN7JM 22:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Well, considering that the KTA overrides all exit numbers of other roads is very unusual. The Will Rogers and Turner in OK match I-44's mileage, and the Tri-State in IL matches I-94, then once I-94 exits off, changes to match I-294. Brycecordry (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC) You have a point with the Tri-State, but the Will Rogers and Turner turnpikes both follow I-44 for their entire lengths, so not using the correct exit numbers would be a faux pas on OTA's part. –TCN7JM 21:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I actually addressed it with less words on the article. It is in two spots. See if you can find it, because I'm not going to right now.Brycecordry (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC) It could be that KSDOT considers the turnpike to be a lower "number" than I-70. Since it "ends" at Bonner Springs, I-70's exit numbers take over. –Fredddie™ 02:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC) KDOT doesn't maintain the Turnpike, KTA does. The most likely reason (getting into OR territory here) is that KTA doesn't want to go through the effort to coordinate numbers with KDOT, or just wants one consistent set of numbers so they can refer to "milepost 4" and not have to clarify whether that is 4 miles north of Oklahoma or 4 miles north of Emporia. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Since the turnpike runs North-South for most of the way, it is considered a North-South route, and therefore has precedence of the mile posts. I-35 would have the same mileage, since it is the southern 127 miles for both routes. I-335 is only on the turnpike, so it does not need its own mileage. And that takes you to 177/236 which is more than half. Bonner Springs is only the end of the toll road, so many people forget the turnpike designation, so it is easier to call it I-70 mileposts. Actually, for the longest time (until 1980s-1990s, dont know which) the turnpike used its exit numbers until 18th Street, and before that, it was an open toll road from the old eastern terminal (then the eastern terminus of the closed system) to 18th Street Brycecordry (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC) People don't forget the turnpike designation. It's still signed on I-70 and, if I remember correctly, there's a service plaza or two on the I-70 portion. There are also a pretty good amount of signs telling you where to go to stay on the turnpike. –TCN7JM 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC) I know. It is signed and Tolled on I-70 from 183 to 224. There are two service areas on I-70's turnpike segment. I am talking about the Bonner Springs to 18th Street Portion. Lots of people that I talked to say that the turnpike ends at Bonner Springs, when really it ends at 18th Street. Since it is not tolled anymore, and people have forgotten about that segment, they changed the mile markers to match I-70's mileage. This was a decision made by the turnpike commission, as they still maintain it until 18th street, as marked by signs. 23:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Do you have a reference to prove this? –TCN7JM 00:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC) It has been changed on the page for quite some time, and no one has complained yet. As for your question, the only reference I have is word of mouth and a 1972 Rand McNally atlas. It shows I-70/KTA as a toll road the whole way (until 18th Street). Nowadays it is only tolled west of Bonner Springs. The 18th street exit is 13, which is too low to be on I-70's mileage. (Kansas used sequential exit numbering back then), and the Bonner Springs exit is 12. There were many more unnumbered exits between 12 and 13. Brycecordry (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Alright, then...but back to the question at hand. Why should we address the I-70 exit number change when the article is about the Turnpike? –TCN7JM 01:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I said that it has been briefly described on the page for quite some time now. Check the page under route description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brycecordry (talk • contribs) Heh...then why are we arguing about this? :) –TCN7JM 03:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I wanted to know if what I said is okay! Brycecordry (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC) What are FA Standards? Brycecordry (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC) WP:WIAFA. –Fredddie™ 00:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC) OK, then what does the history of tolls fall under, that makes it unneeded? Brycecordry (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I never said it was unneeded; I said you needed to cite your sources. More exact dates would be helpful, too, rather than just a random guess by decade. –TCN7JM 04:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I only have a 1972 Rand McNally Atlas, no later date until 2012. How should I know when the tolling was pushed back from 236 to 224? I know when the second pushback from 224 to 217 was, as noted here. Brycecordry (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Then why didn't you cite that as a source? –TCN7JM 04:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I thought I did; did it not show up? I copied the template for a 2010 RMN atlas and replaced 2010 with 1972. Brycecordry (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC) No, the page from 2000...why didn't you cite that? –TCN7JM 05:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I didn't know what I was doing! Brycecordry (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Recap

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)

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

Declarations

• 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)
  • Striking this for now, as some progress has been made. --Rschen7754 01:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

With permission from Scott5114 I'm hatting the unnecessary commentary, unnecessary on both our parts. --Rschen7754 01:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who's read the history sources, dude. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Sure, but that's not the only thing wrong with the article. --Rschen7754 22:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC) But it illustrates that you're among the editors not following through here. All you have done is just sort of vaguely waved your arms at sources, saying "There's some stuff in this book somewhere! I'll be damned if I'll tell you what exactly is missing though! Read it yourself, teeheehee!" I think it's rather...I dunno, untoward, I guess, to advocate taking this to FAR in that position. You remain the only one to have actually read the sources but not done a damn thing to put what you have read in the article, so you're just as guilty as the editors you condemn. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Well if you're going to pull that card, then I'll point out that this isn't my FA, after all. Not to mention the many times I've mentioned this substandard FA of yours on IRC, only to be blown off the vast majority of the time. And that PDF book is a very easy read, and is easily available to you, and the link has been posted on this ACR for several months. In short, as the only remaining nominator you should be the one taking the lead on fixing the article to meet current standards - if you notice, it's been me taking the initiative for the vast majority of this ACR, which I am quite unhappy about. The only thing more I could do is rewrite the entire history section for you, which I am not going to do, as that would also result in my having to write the route description as everyone else assumes that I'll take the initiative in that too. Well, I have other article writing priorities, and I have to draw the line somewhere. --Rschen7754 23:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Once articles get to the FA level, it's not any individual editor's FA—I know it's been bandied about a lot lately, but that way of thinking is WP:OWN—it's the project's to maintain. That's why we have had a bunch of USRD editors all over Pulaski Skyway. It's why I've called for collaboration here—at this level we need people to collaborate. (Or is actual collaboration fundamentally something beyond the grasp of Wikipedia?) Since this review started, we've gotten an exit list, we've gotten a lot of the route description rewritten, and the only thing left untouched is the history. You haven't identified any actual, specific deficiencies in the history section. That's your job as a reviewer to do. You can't just say "A PDF exists!" but not give specifics about why that's important. It could be that you're referring to some exceedingly trivial detail that would be best left out of the article anyway, but we don't know because you won't tell us what's missing. That will discredit your FAR, so it would behoove you to give up the goods at some point. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC) The route description rewrite has barely started, and has been dead for months. And as for why all those sources are important: because "comprehensive" is part of the FA criteria, and it's quite obvious that when that many sources exist that aren't even touched upon in the article, there's a problem. Finally, look at the length of the history of constructing the road: for one of the most important roads in the state of Kansas, there's only 4 paragraphs on how it was built (and one that's entirely uncited?) Most USRD FAs on much less cared-about roads have longer history of construction sections than that. You don't see a problem there? Also, you've gotta read the sources for yourself - it's not my job to copy and paste them to Wikipedia. Finally, while we do look out for all the USRD FAs, when the nominator's still around, it's been the defacto understanding (as it is across Wikipedia) that the nominator take a critical part in fixing the article - look at how Imzadi1979 and I take care of our many FAs, and how the nominator *must* be notified when an article is sent to FAR. It is fair to expect the project to be of assistance - yet when the nominator vigorously defends their position 1) that this article is very close to the FA standard, when it is currently littered with tags, and 2) when the nominator expects the other members of the project to do the vast majority of the work for him—that is what I find quite unacceptable. --Rschen7754 23:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Send to FAR unless someone is willing to fix the article. Dough4872 00:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

---

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.