Talk:Interstate 91

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exit List[edit]

I've created a table of the exits in all three states. Should it be included? It's a bit long (you can check it out here), but it might be nice to have it on page, instead of linked. Opinions?

If I don't hear anything in a few days, I'll add it to the page. --insiriusdenial 19:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at the Exit list format in Interstate 84 (east), which is more like what other Interstate highway articles use. In any case, go ahead and include it. People will improve upon it once it's there. --Polaron | Talk 20:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Song[edit]

As noted in the article, there is a They Might Be Giants song that references Interstate 91, and also includes a reference to an overpass--it's implied within the song that the overpass is at Interstate 91. Does anyone here know if I-91 actually has any overpasses? Just curious. (I think I see one in the picture, but I'm not entirely sure.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.26.8 (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Mass Pike shield.png[edit]

The image Image:Mass Pike shield.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Booster for nearby areas[edit]

I-91 addresses a particular topic. It is an interstate road, servicing those who formerly chose to drive US Rte 5. Like most interstates, it needed a major adjacent road to absorb traffic leaving I-91 and to provide traffic entering it.

It is not to provide a billboard (WP:BOOSTER) for adjacent tourist spots, nor to provide WP:SPAM for them. They have their own articles.

Also replaced were requests made years ago for material used in the article. These really are removable upon seeing them. No request need be made. All articles are stand-alone. No "toleration" by editors for uncited material is necessary. See WP:BURDEN. Student7 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see WP:BOOSTER issues at work. The road junction list (RJL) reflects the official DOT signage along the highway, and that includes mentioning other cities and such in the notes column. It would be BOOSTERism if we were using uncited praise for those cities or attractions instead of neutrally noting their existence. After all, we are supposed to WP:BUILDTHEWEB by linking articles together.
As for the other stuff, I've copied the one part that's not WP:CRYSTAL material here so that maybe someone else can find the citations and restore it.

In the 1970s there were plans to extend I-91 across the Long Island Sound from New Haven, Connecticut to Long Island in New York. The extension would continue south to the southern shore of the island perhaps along the route of the current William Floyd Parkway[citation needed] in central Suffolk County. It would also provide easier access to New York City via the Long Island Expressway, as well as to The Hamptons via Sunrise Highway (New York State Route 27). It would have been Similar to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel with two tunnels and it would have been 2 miles longer, thus being the longest bridge/tunnel in the Western Hemisphere.

Confirmed and official proposals are not predictions, even if they didn't come to pass. Interstate 275 (Michigan) had a northern segment that was planned. That much is confirmed knowledge. That it wasn't built is also confirmed knowledge. If the I-91 extension across Long Island Sound was actually officially proposed, there will be sources for it, even if the extension was not built. It would still be an event in the history of the highway worth including, but as you note, it does need citations. It is your claim of WP:CRYSTAL that's erroneous though. Imzadi 1979 → 01:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this in the edit summary, but will repeat it here: the "Also serves" phrases reflect the signs on I-91 in Vermont that are not part of the primary exit sign. For example, for Exit 2, the primary exit sign is for Brattleboro and Bennington [1], but about 3/4 miles prior to this sign, another, smaller sign indicates Marlboro College and Wilmington [2]. There are also other signs such as [3] that I did not manage to find all on the Street View, but you get the idea. Not totally sure if this should be in the Destinations column (I think not, as it is more difficult to verify such signs on Street View), so they end up on the Notes column. Unfortunately almost every exit in Vermont has such signs. Chinissai (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these are paid signs, usually brown. Not quite in the gasoline/fast food category, but paid, anyway.
I think "also" sounds funny unless there is a really, really good reason for using the term. "Also, some of these are paid..." "Also, I think...." How does the inclusion of those terms help my wording here in any way? Something is either there or it isn't there. Using "also" doesn't seem to help in any way. Kind of like "Er..." when I can't think of what I want to say next, but still want the floor!  :) Student7 (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The brown signs aren't "paid signs"; you might be thinking of the blue logo signs. Imzadi 1979 → 15:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split into individual states[edit]

I propose that we split this article by state, since no other page on the wikiproject follows an interstate by a single page (as long as it's in more than 2 states), and the page fails WP:LENGTH and WP:SPLIT. HeatIsCool (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 93 goes through three states and is one article, so the first part of this argument falls on its face. Looking at statistics (from the page size widget), we can compare this article to some other Interstate articles:
Article File size Prose size Route length
Text only Readable words
I-91 277 kB 18 kB 2905 words 290 mi
I-93 300 kB 21 kB 3488 words 190 mi
I-68 203 kB 20 kB 3300 words 113 mi
I-8 402 kB 40 kB 6795 words 350 mi
I-80 (IA) 243 kB 23 kB 3932 words 306 mi
I-75 (MI) 448 kB 33 kB 5597 words 396 mi
I-70 (UT) 174 kB 20 kB 3488 words 232 mi
You'll notice that except for I-91 and I-93, these are all Featured Articles. I added some state-detail articles to this because the highways were of comparable lengths to all of I-91. Where am I going with this? Instead of focusing on the length of the article, we should be focusing on the quality. I-91 can become a FA with the right effort, but I believe splitting the article into state-detail articles for the sake of splitting them would be detrimental to the project. –Fredddie™ 21:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I-91 is shorter than Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania and many other single-state stretches of longer Interstates; given the short length and the fact the New England states are small, with short stretches across each state, I think its reasonable for the entire length of the route to be covered in one well-written article. Dough4872 01:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo is appropriate for now. If this article were ever expanded far enough to warrant splitting (and we'd be talking about adding over 2,600 words to come close to the length of I-75 in MI), then we could be discussing splitting things up. Until then, it's very premature. Imzadi 1979 → 02:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I browsed through at least most of WikiProject U.S. Roads and there's no policy regarding this matter. Perhaps a policy need be added there? HeatIsCool (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should (re)read Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Notability#Sub_articles. –Fredddie™ 15:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 91. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 91. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 91. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAN in the future[edit]

I am planning on Nominating this for a Good Article in the near future. All help is appreciated. AmericanAir88 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of the moment, the article would fail a nomination without some extensive work.
  • The article relies on SPSs, which fail our verification policy. In short, you'll need to find citations to sources that aren't self-published road geek websites.
  • At the same time, you should have a basic pairing of citations for the geographic details in the three RD subsections. Generally, we cite to the official state map and a set of Google Maps driving directions (in satellite mode) to verify the routing and landscape/environment of a highway. Specific details about landmarks along a highway would need individual citation beyond the maps.
  • The basic facts of the history section all need citation(s) to non-SPSs.
  • The Springfield riverfront subsection should be condensed as too detailed in comparison to the rest of the historical timeline from the history section. At the same time, since it's now the only subsection of the future section, the subheading should be removed.
  • The junction at MM 17.952 in the VT section of the exit list table needs a location, either one of the adjacent locations needs to span into that row of the table, a different location needs to be added, or it should be set to |location=none to provide a blank cell there.
  • Note 5 needs a full slate of citation information, and as noted above, the SPSs (Steve Anderson, Interstate Guide, Kurumi) need replacement and additional SPSs from AARoads, etc, should not be (re-)introduced as sources. They can be added to the external links section, however.
Imzadi 1979 → 07:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: Thank you so much for this. I will work hard on fixing these. AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: It has been several months and within these months have been several improvements. These past few weeks have seen an increase in reliable references, prose readability, and viable information. Can I finally ask it time for me to nominate the article for GA? Anything else that needs to be done? AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposed[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello, The Vermont section of this article is very long and accounts for a majority of the sourcing and information in the article. I propose that a split occurs so that an article called Interstate 91 in Vermont is created. Thank you.

I am tagging @SounderBruce: and @Imzadi1979: AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's compare the current state of this article to two other articles, U.S. Route 8 and Interstate 75 in Michigan. In the former, we also have one article covering a highway that runs through 3 states where one state dominates the length, although it's less extreme in the disparities in lengths with I-91 than US 8. Because the VT section of I-91 is a majority of the length, we'd expect that section to account for the "majority of the sourcing and information in the article". Compared to I-75, the entirety of I-91 is shorter than the Michigan section of I-75. The overall RD here compares similarly to I-75 in MI's at first glance, so I wouldn't call it "very long" at all in any respect. The length of this article doesn't warrant a split based upon page size considerations at this time, so the proposal should not be adopted. Imzadi 1979 → 20:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the route description is re-written with a goal of 50 miles per paragraph, Connecticut and Massachusetts would each have a paragraph, and Vermont would have three and a half paragraphs. This is perfectly OK and wouldn't violate WP:UNDUE. I don't think splitting out Vermont is a viable solution at all. –Fredddie™ 22:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the statistics table above in #Split into individual states is still accurate, and the discussion there applies to the current situation three years later. I commented above without realizing we'd already had this discussion. Imzadi 1979 → 22:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing proposal. AmericanAir88 (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA Review[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 91/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mgasparin (talk · contribs) 07:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I will be reviewing this page over the next day or so, please watch for my comments. Thanks!! Mgasparin (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Criteria[edit]

1. Is the article well written?

Overall, I have few problems with the writing and find it easy to read and understand. One small change I would like to make is in the History section, the sentence After the September 11 attacks... should be changed to

After the September 11 attacks, a seldom-staffed temporary border patrol checkpoint was installed near White River Junction, Vermont, about 100 mi from the Canadian border.

The article also complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

 Done AmericanAir88(talk) 12:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it verifiable?

This is what I have the most problems with. The section on Vermont contains 3 paragraphs that are completely uncited. That will fail GA immediately.

However, I cannot find any other instances of missing citations, or problems with WP:OR, copyvios, etc.

 Done AmericanAir88(talk) 13:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3. Is it neutral?

Given the article's subject, there is no reason why it wouldn't be neutral.

4. Is it stable?

The article does not appear to change much from day to day, and there aren't any edit wars, content disputes, etc.

5. Is it illustrated appropriately by images?

Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Overall, not a bad article. Just fix those citation issues and that minor issue in wording and it should be good. Thanks!! Mgasparin (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgasparin: Thank you so much for this review. It has been about a year since nomination. I have fixed all the issues you have presented. AmericanAir88(talk) 13:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AmericanAir88: Thank you so much for your prompt replies. I am satisfied with the article now and am ready to pass this article. Good Job! Mgasparin (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
@Mgasparin: Appreciate it. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by AmericanAir88. Nominated by AmericanAir88 (talk) at 19:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • Verified this passed GA on 17 August, so is eligible. It is long enough (and then some). Given this passed GA, it would seem to be within policy (NPOV, citations) - and my brief review of the entire article did raise issues. Earwig is clean on copyvio alerts. However, then I got to the hook. ALT1 - is not supported by its source which says "Berlin Turnpike (Connecticut routes 5 and 15) parallels I-91"[4] - so this is possibly US route 5 (if we accept Connecticut route 5 is the same) - within Connecticut - but I-91 runs up through Massachusetts and then a whole ways through Vermont. So this hook fails + the article's reference in "Route description" description needs to be improved. Now - the main hook does pass WP:V, and is actually more interesting in my opinion. Looking at a map (and, well, I have driven here) - the info on US-5 is correct - so this just needs a better source (or perhaps pointing out to me that I'm blind and haven't read correctly). Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: Thank you for taking this on. I personally love Interstate 91. I think the Main hook works best. AmericanAir88(talk) 18:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AmericanAir88: - the main hook is good to go - but I need you to either modify the text in article to match www.town.berlin.ct.us - or, better, add a second source (or replace berlin.ct.us) so that it supports the current text.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. if you google-book search I-91+route-5+parallel - there seem to be several possible sources to source this outside of CT.Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @AmericanAir88: I was afraid that doing this would get me involved, but I see regular reviewers elsewhere do minor improvements, and throwing a couple of refs for this minor detail (for states farther up) - is - well - minor. So this is good to go. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues[edit]

Since seeing this pass GAN, a few things have been bothering me in general, but it's not quite enough to push for a reassessment. AmericanAir88, I hope you can address some of these issues, especially if you plan to pursue A-Class or FA status for this one.

  • The Massachusetts section of the Route description is somewhat short on details and written in WP:PROSELINE, which is hard to read.
  • Most of the Route description, for that matter, lacks geographic context and reads like a Google Maps instruction rather than a real description of the land that the highway passes through. I would highly recommend looking at topographic maps and add small things like whether the highway climbs or descends from a hill, passes through a cut, or if it meanders around a feature.
  • The AADT counts aren't formatted well and should explicitly state whether each statistic is the highest or lowest count, or why they matter in general; also it's Canadian border, not Border.
  • The history section lacks the pre-Interstate history of the corridor or much of the construction history, which for a highway of this length should be well recorded through newspaper articles.
  • The third-to-last paragraph of the History section lacks a citation. Also, we should be using intersecting highways or town names instead of exit numbers when referring to locales, especially in the context of past events (since exit numbers can change).
  • I highly doubt that a new border checkpoint and a single interchange rebuild are all that happened on I-91 in the past 20 years.
  • The Future section has an "As of" statement dated to 2011. There has to have been progress since then.

I would also suggest that the reviewer Mgasparin take a closer look at similar GAs and FAs when reviewing, especially for an unfamiliar subject. Interstate 82 is one of my GAs that covers a similar situation (a short-ish multi-state freeway) that should be a decent template to work off of. SounderBruce 00:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exit Numbers in CT[edit]

The exit numbers listed in the table for Connecticut are incorrect. The highway has not been renumbered, and the old ones are still posted. The "new" numbers are not proposed til about 2027. I have no issue with listing the "new" numbers, provided they are labeled as "future" or "proposed" (and the "old" column listed as the current exits). The proposed numbers are likely to be tweaked, so it is premature to list them until they are finalized and installed. –Zfish118⋉talk 17:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_91&oldid=1207729685"