MyWiki:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 355
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Interstate 355
[edit source]- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article was promoted --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Interstate 355 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: Only open issue regarding GA promotion are that the word "tollway" is used a wee bit too much. I agree, but felt using the generic term "road" would hint that it's a free road, which it's not.
- Nominated by: —Rob (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose,this article is not compliant with either WP:ELG or WP:USRD/INNA. Per ELG, abbreviations are to be used for the displayed text for links in the exit list; per INNA, abbreviations are to be used in the infobox. The ", IL" that is tacked onto every link in the infobox is redundant; the entire route is in Illinois. I haven't actually read the article yet, so my opinion may change if these issues are corrected. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)- Fixed. I forgot about the abbreviations, in spite of my dislike of that particular decision. I'm in the process of addressing the rest... —Rob (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Opposition struck. I'm currently
neutral; I'll see how the article develops over the next day or so. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Opposition struck. I'm currently
- Fixed. I forgot about the abbreviations, in spite of my dislike of that particular decision. I'm in the process of addressing the rest... —Rob (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, definitely a much better article than the one that passed WP:GA and the one that originally arrived here. All of my concerns have been addressed, and to me, it's good enough for A-Class now. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to echo TMF's comments here, but I also have lots of my own:
- Two out of the four links in the external links section fail WP:EL.
- Ref #5 is not a reliable source.
- Ref #5 leads to the State of Illinois' GIS data. Which contains precise, US government-validated (more likely, the US Government uses the IL GIS as a source for its figures) distance figures. If you're going to call it a primary statistical source, fine, but I'm not analyzing the data and calling it original research - I'm repeating verbatim what the state said about the distance of the tollway. —Rob (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I concur with the above, if a government source isn't reliable, then I don't know what is. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 07:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Took a while but Fixed. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- History section needs a hell lot more sources than this.
This is pathetic.- Ah, I'm feeling feeling the constructive criticism tonight. I thought this page was to avoid the atmosphere of WP:FA nominations. No matter. Maybe 14 sources in 14 paragraphs (the vast majority in the Southern Extension section, to no one's surprise) isn't enough, but it's a little difficult to dig into articles in the 1989-1992 era. I haven't given up yet, but progress on that front will be slow, to say the least, which is why it won't be a featured article for some time. But if the rest of the article looked like the Southern Extension section, it would much more resemble a FA. —Rob (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, O went a little too far there. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 07:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you think I'm strict, think again. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (GMT)
- You can be strict and have a helpful nature about it. The pathetic comment was unnecessary and the first sentence could have been worded differently while getting the same point across. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed with JA10 / TMF, O. That was out of line. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you think I'm strict, think again. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (GMT)
- The route description needs a rewrite. It's too boring for people with short attention spans, and it is disorganised.
- Does the Veterans Memorial Tollway Bicycle Trail section belong in the route description?
- After you are done with a rewrite of the route description and better sourcing of the history section, move the history section above the route description, as it is going to be much more interesting than the route description.
- Can I have a source for the Chicagoland traffic reports?
Hopefully.That one and the "there used to only be 2 lanes" part of the article I need to find somewhere. I don't think "WBBM 780 AM, 2007-11-26, 10:08 AM" would be a reliable source. —Rob (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)- Also would like to note that I'm aware that a lot of the early history is based on 18 years of traveling up and down said highway. So some stuff is in there that is very much can't-be-referenced-yet, seeing as memories can't be referenced, but is not patently false. The next best thing is a microfiche in some library, somewhere. —Rob (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- PM is not formatted correctly; MOS:DATE says to use p.m.
- Numbers and units must have a non-breaking space between them. (MOS:NUM)
- I-355 currently has six lanes, three in each direction, along its entire length.—Stubby paragraph; they may not appear anywhere in the article, and they are everywhere. It's also unsourced, unless you can display a picture to prove that.
- ...There's two, but I don't think that's enough. I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in a source. I'll look later, but those sources may have fallen into paid archives by now... :-( —Rob (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could take one when you have the time? 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 21:23, 27 November 2007 (GMT)
- Would a reference to an aerial map work? All are up-to-date regarding how many lanes I-355 has. —Rob (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- An aerial map is discouraged as they rarely get updated regularly. For example, the old look of Clayton, Missouri looked just like how it looked when I moved out of there. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:25, 28 November 2007 (GMT)
- Would a reference to an aerial map work? All are up-to-date regarding how many lanes I-355 has. —Rob (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could take one when you have the time? 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 21:23, 27 November 2007 (GMT)
- ...There's two, but I don't think that's enough. I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in a source. I'll look later, but those sources may have fallen into paid archives by now... :-( —Rob (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's all I have to say for now. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:39, 25 November 2007 (GMT)
- History section needs a hell lot more sources than this.
- Support – I found this article compelling and well-written, certainly well enough for the A-Class level. When the reference problems are sorted out, by all means, take it to FA. —Scott5114↗ 07:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- This comment is following up from my previous one: the lead does not adequately summarise the entire article, including the history and the southern extension. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 21:27, 27 November 2007 (GMT)
- I think it's addressed, and I'll continue to take looks at it. Pending things are sources for history section, finding original sources for IL state highways page ref (now ref #3)
and rewrite of the route description. —Rob (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's addressed, and I'll continue to take looks at it. Pending things are sources for history section, finding original sources for IL state highways page ref (now ref #3)
- Support Looks good enough to me. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Only issues I have are that the route description should be before the history. Also, the interchange types are not defined or linked to. Otherwise, this is a comprehensive article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is a rationale above... I figured in general that it was still an open issue as far as the project was concerned. Interchanges... I'll peek at the guide and give it a thought. Can't really cite them, in spite of the fact they're all cloverleafs or diamonds. —Rob (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, who closes this discussion and when? —Rob (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- From the ACR page, "After seven days, or, in the event consensus is unclear regarding an article after a week, when consensus is determined, the discussion can be closed." So, at the earliest, the discussion would be closed December 2, although with the ongoing discussions, it may be extended if necessary. As for who...ideally a USRD editor who wasn't involved in the ACR. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Might want to sift through the entire prose here; I just saw one instance of apostrophe abuse, and possibly some MOS:NUM issues. There are still stubby paragraphs scattered around. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 01:02, 04 December 2007 (GMT)
- There are less stubby paragraphs now (without the threat of a cite tag, too, I do believe) and the whole thing should flow. Also took care of the apostrophes. —Rob (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- This review was due to end on December 2...it is now December 8. Any thoughts on the article? --Son (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it wasn't "due" to end, that was the earliest date that it could have been closed. Since there's ongoing discussion and improvements being made, and the fact that there's nothing requiring us to allow only seven days for each review when there's still activity on the seventh day, it doesn't hurt to go a few extra days to make sure the article isn't shortchanged. Generally, in a case like this where we go overtime, I'd say a review could be closed five days or so after the last content-related comment, but that's just me. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed... I'm sure the FA process will bring (many) extra pairs of eyes to the article (especially to that early history section), but for A-class purposes it seems as though most/all concerns have been addressed, and I haven't planned on adding anything major before then. —Rob (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it wasn't "due" to end, that was the earliest date that it could have been closed. Since there's ongoing discussion and improvements being made, and the fact that there's nothing requiring us to allow only seven days for each review when there's still activity on the seventh day, it doesn't hurt to go a few extra days to make sure the article isn't shortchanged. Generally, in a case like this where we go overtime, I'd say a review could be closed five days or so after the last content-related comment, but that's just me. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.