Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 40 in Tennessee/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 April 2023 [1].

Interstate 40 in Tennessee[edit]

Nominator(s): Bneu2013 (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about arguably the most important highway in the State of Tennessee by a long shot, and the eighth longest Interstate Highway segment within a single state (second east of the Mississippi River). This highway serves the three largest cities in Tennessee and traverses a wide diversity of landscapes and terrain. In addition, this particular stretch of highway is nationally significant in that it is connected to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling and passes through one of the most important regions instrumental in the development of popular music, hence its nickname of "Music Highway". This article was promoted to GA status a little over a year ago, and recently underwent peer review. If promoted, this would be the first article about a highway in Tennessee to become a featured article. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi Bneu2013 and welcome to to FAC. Just a note that, as this appears to be your first nomination, we'll be requiring a reviewer to undertake a spot-check of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, this is my first nomination. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Hernando_de_Soto_Bridge_Memphis.jpg: source link is dead
    • Fixed.
  • File:I-40-Nashville-1962.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Malfunction_junction_knoxville_1970s.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first was published in a pamphlet by the Tennessee Department of Highways, predecessor to TDOT, in 1962, similar to the one from 1966 that is cited. The latter was used in a 1976 engineering study for the redesign of the interchange. A black-and-white version also was published in The Knoxville Journal that year. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for almost three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open for a month and has yet to show any signs of moving towards a consensus to promote. Unless this changes within the next 48 hours I afraid that it is liable to be archived. Pinging editors who have left comments @Rschen7754, Cyclonebiskit, and Moabdave: Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - I would like to appeal this. This is a long article, and reviewers need to take their time reading through it. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: second opinion sought. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still have intentions of getting to this. Exhaustion from work and then focusing on the recent tornado outbreak took time away from working on this review. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving can now cut off in progress reviews!? This is quite shocking. --Rschen7754 00:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am honestly going to try to get to this later this week. My apologies. I truly do want to help, but there's a perfect storm of real life stuff going on right now. However, it does look like things will calm down as the week progresses. Dave (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I guess I am not sure what you were expecting. This is a very long article with 200+ citations and it is difficult for someone to sit down and take an hour or 2 hours straight to read it. That all being said - I am hesitant to continue reviewing this article further because 1) I am not sure if you will have closed the review by the time I next log on (I have never seen reviews cut off like this) and 2) admittedly there are some problems with the article that might not be fixable during the remaining time of this FAC. But I think when this comes back here in two weeks you're going to have the same problems again with the nomination stalling, simply because of the length. You take your pick. --Rschen7754 06:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry all that it took a while to get to this. Appreciate the depth of your review, Rschen, but the very fact of its length suggests the article was underprepared for FAC. That, coupled with the fact that yours is still the only in-depth review after a month, indicates that arriving at consensus to promote is still a long way off; I also appreciate the nominator did the right thing by taking the article to PR before FAC but obviously more was needed. I'm thus inclined to archive it as Gog is. As for the same issue arising in a new FAC after two weeks, that needn't be the case. I'd suggest either a new PR or an informal review on the article talk page. Rschen can move their outstanding comments to that review for action, Cyclonebiskit and Moabdave can join in there too. Between you and the nominator you should have a decent shot at getting the article into shape outside the pressure of the FAC system, then bring it back here for a new nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus for promotion seems to be forming and so I am archiving this. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Hopefully during this period reviewers comments can be addressed and those interested in improving the article can do so without the pressure of the FAC ticking clock. I look forward to seeing this back at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen7754[edit]

I'm pretty slammed these days on and offwiki, so I'll just chip away at this a bit at a time. If I haven't come back in a few days, please drop me a ping.

  • This is not a FAC standard at all, but you have 11 junctions in the infobox and traditionally the hard limit is 10.
    • I could combine the I-840 junctions into one, but both are nearly 60 miles apart. More than half of the routes listed in the infobox actually have two junctions; it's just that they are so close together that you can list them as being in the same city. I guess I could say "I-840 near Dickson and in Lebanon", but that wording doesn't sound right.
  • Image captions: if it is a complete sentence there should be a period at the end, if not then not
    • Done.
  • Sources: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. - do we know this?
  • IMO Source 9 should have a location
    • Source is from "KnoxTNToday.com", and there is only one Knoxville and Knox County in Tennessee, so I feel that might be redundant.
  • topographic-map.com - where is the data coming from?
    • Mostly OpenStreetMap and Esri, and the sources that those use, including USGS, satellite imagery, etc.
      • OSM is going to cause a problem since that is a wiki. --Rschen7754 06:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - I've switched all of them to USGS maps. I've also added a few extra USGS maps to corroborate other terrain descriptions. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 27 citation needs a bit of work, no author
    • Fixed, also changed the title to the official name of the map, even though some of the information cited comes from the description. Please let me know if my changes are adequate.
  • Source 127, 181 - construction company is a self-published source. It seemed to get consensus for use in 1 detail in a recent FAC but I would strongly recommend avoiding that.
    • Added an additional source to corroborate 127. The reason I cited a contractor's website for 181 is because it was the only source I could find that lists the final cost of the project, which was slightly higher than the bid cost ($190 million). All other sources I could find mention the latter. I think citing this for that purpose would be okay here. This is the engineering firm, not the contractor who built the project. Fixed the citation to clarify that.
  • Source 179, 180 - don't think the work should be the URL.
    • Not sure what the problem is. No urls are in the work parameter.
      • I would use America's Transportation Awards instead of the URL. --Rschen7754 04:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.
  • Press releases - while they can be used I would try and find a newspaper article instead where possible.
    • All press releases are from TDOT, which is where corroborating newspaper articles get their information from. Most of the press releases already have corroborating newspaper sources.

More later. --Rschen7754 05:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: - I believe I have responded to all of the comments you have posted. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RJL
  • Can we really get mileages to the hundredth from Google Maps? I am skeptical. --Rschen7754 04:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can with the measuring tool. I would honestly prefer a different source myself, though. Do you know of one? Note that it was not me who added these distances. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've poked around the DOT website and did not find anything - but perhaps I missed something. The problem with the measuring tool is that it is basically tracing - a few pixels off and the number is wrong. A recent FA Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coventry ring road/archive1 used the driving directions tool to get the information, which is at least reproducible. Or you could round to the nearest tenth. --Rschen7754 06:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, TDOT does not appear to provide route logs, unlike most states. The closest I could find was this map of mileposts. However, I will add that I have had other GAs pass with the mileposts determined to the tenth using the measuring tool. In this case, while I didn't add the distances, I verified them with the measuring tool. If you know of some other tool I could use, please let me know. Bneu2013 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RD
  • Where are you getting the speed limits from? --Rschen7754 06:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, Google Maps. There seems to be a consensus that Google Maps is reliable for speed limits. I've had some other GAs pass with this. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this easily verifiable without StreetView? --Rschen7754 05:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        No. I will add though that navigation apps know the speed limits. I'm not sure where they get their information from though. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        This is definitely not going to be acceptable after [3] (though it probably was not before). I think that needs to be removed unless you can find another source. --Rschen7754 05:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • After giving it some consideration, I've decided to remove this altogether, since these speed limits are in no way unique to I-40 in Tennessee. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in a direct east–west alignment - you do mean due east/west?
  • This stretch carries eight lanes - same problem as above.
    • I think this is covered by WP:BLUE. But a sentence about when this stretch was widened to eight lanes is cited later in the history section. In fact, all sections that were widened to six or more lanes have citations for this. TDOT also provides HOV lane locations on their website.
      • If you added that citation and the HOV lane locations that would be fine. --Rschen7754 00:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Traversing through a mix of additional level farmland and swamplands again, not acceptable due to the RFC, and ditto with the other phrases in the section. --Rschen7754 05:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't seen that there is yet a consensus that this is unacceptable. There seems to be more of an agreement that general statements like this are acceptable. I may have missed it, but was there a discussion about whether or not street view is reliable for statements like this? Street view is definitely more interpretable than satellite imagery. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having done some additional searching, I have found other articles that seem to rely on maps for terrain descriptions without controversy. For example, Interstate 75 in Michigan and Interstate 94 in Michigan, both FAs, rely entirely on Google Maps and state highway maps for descriptions of landscapes. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The RFC is likely going to affect those articles and many others too, depending on the outcome. I won't oppose over just the terrain, but I can't make any promises as to how other reviewers or the FAC delegates will handle this. --Rschen7754 21:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • near the site of Ford Motor Company's future Blue Oval City manufacturing facility - source for this?
      • Reused source from the exit list about a future interchange.
    • I-40 then reduces back to four lanes and leaves Jackson - again with the lanes.
      • Again, I don't see why we can't use Google Maps here. Is anyone really going to dispute that three lanes reduce to two here? The projects that widened this section, one of which is still ongoing, are all cited in the history section. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • through a sparsely populated territory - needs a source
      • I personally think satellite imagery should be acceptable here, but I know some will disagree. The only way this wouldn't be true here is if everyone were living underground. But how about a population density map? Bneu2013 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If you can find a reliably sourced one that might work. Rschen7754 00:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Will do. It will take me a little bit. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • with the westbound lanes utilizing a truck climbing lane - needs a source. --Rschen7754 00:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, cited in the history section. Should I reuse the sources for widening projects here? Bneu2013 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is mentioned there, that works. --Rschen7754 21:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: - I believe I have addressed all of your comments so far. If issues have not adequately been fixed, please let me know. Thanks. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • by several noticeable upgrades and downgrades - ambiguous phrasing.
    • short distance - used 3x in consecutive sentences
      • Also seeing it used a lot throughout the RD section. Try and reduce this or consider eliminating entirely.
    • gradually ascending - not a good way to end a sentence
    • Some of these paragraphs also need to be cited to a topo map.
    • The interstate - should be capitalized, also more lanes
    • As part of the freeway that encircles downtown Nashville known locally as the Downtown Loop or Inner Loop - dependent clause that is saying a bit too much
    • expanding back to eight lanes - more lanes
    • another important means of access to the airport - shifting towards editorializing here
    • Entering another long straightaway, some distance later - redundancy
    • reduces back to four lanes
    • For the next roughly 25 miles - feel like there's one word too many here
    • open farmland - I know I wasn't going to comment more about scenery, but "open" farmland?
    • Another truck climbing lane
    • This grade is moderately steep - cited to Google Maps. Might have your citations mixed up.
    • for the first time in Tennessee - can you get that just from the Silver Point map?
    • the speed limit reduces to 65 mph (105 km/h)
    • After ascending further up - one too many words
    • East of Crossville, the Crab Orchard Mountains, the southern fringe of the Cumberland Mountains, - the double appositive is confusing
    • Another truck climbing lane
    • once prone to rockslides - citation?
    • off of - off?
    • More speed limits and truck climbing lanes, they need to be cited or removed. Won't continue pointing them out.
    • some describe as dramatic views of the Tennessee Valley below - who? Source?
    • before reaching I-75 a short distance beyond - paragraph needs topo citations too. --Rschen7754 04:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please go through and make sure every paragraph that refers to ascending and descending is sourced with a topo.
    • Here, they have an interchange with a local thoroughfare. - this sentence says almost nothing.
    • the Interstate has an interchange with SR 66 and the northern terminus of the Great Smoky Mountains Parkway, beginning an unsigned concurrency with the former. This interchange - could be more clear. This is one interchange?
    • and, as a result, is one of the busiest non-Interstate exits in the state - needs a citation
    • but there is no signage for this - needs a citation. --Rschen7754 06:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cyclonebiskit[edit]

Placeholder for future review ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moabdave[edit]

Placeholder for review. I would like to help, unfortunately I'm going to be slammed for the next few days with other priorities. Dave (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Interstate_40_in_Tennessee/archive1&oldid=1148568823"