Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Creek Turnpike

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creek Turnpike[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.

Three support votes result in this article being promoted. -happy5214 08:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

Creek Turnpike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Finally, at long last, I give you—the Creek Turnpike. This article has been in the works since 2008, whenever I collected all the sources, but I kind of put off doing it until the last couple of months. (Much like the highway itself, planned in the 1950s was put off until the early 1990s!) I've been planning on this being my third FAC since its sister turnpike, the Chickasaw, passed. I think it's ready now. Don't let the size of the article put you off reviewing it—the GA reviewer told me that it was quite interesting.
Known issues: 1) the OSM map is sort of shoddy. Happy5214 is going to create a better version for me at some point soon when some OSM changes he made push through to the tile renderer. 2) There are a few Tulsa World references that are missing page numbers. These are articles that I didn't collect from the online database at my college in 2008; while that database (which I no longer have access to) had page numbers available, the Tulsa World website does not, so I have no way of looking these up. (References which are known to be missing the page number have an HTML comment in the source. If there is no HTML comment, please let me know, as it means I probably overlooked that ref.)
Nominated by: —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 14:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by TCN7JM[edit]

Spotcheck by TCN7JM

I just reviewed this article when it was at GAN, so reviewing it again would be redundant, and I'm sure somebody else would like to do the image review, so I'll take the spotcheck. TCN7JM 14:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, I'm supposed to review 25% of the sources with 20 being the maximum required...so 20 it is!

  1. Source 13 -  Verifiable, no plagiarism
  2. Source 14 - (Preliminary note: I think the title should be "Pikepass History", not "OTA History".)  Verifiable, no plagiarism
  3. Source 19 -  Verifiable, one word bothers me...is it possible to replace the word "regardless"?
  4. Source 23 -  Verifiable, no plagiarism
  5. Source 37 -  Not verifiable, no plagiarism...Elm Street isn't mentioned at all in the source. It says the final leg started at Peoria Avenue.
  6. Source 38 -  Verifiable, no plagiarism
  7. Source 40 -  Verifiable, no plagiarism
  8. Source 42 -  Somewhat verifiable, no plagiarism...no dates are mentioned in the source, only weekdates, and the article is dated 2/27/2007.
  9. Source 87 -  Somewhat verifiable, no plagiarism...I'm not seeing a $7 million budget overrun.
  10. Source 93 -  Verifiable, no plagiarism
  11. Source 94 - (Preliminary note: The Tulsa World isn't mentioned in the footnote.)  Verifiable, no plagiarism
  12. Source 95 -  Somewhat verifiable, no plagiarism...I don't see anything about an August 2013 scheduled completion date.
  13. Source 96 -  Verifiable, plagiarism not applicable
  14. Source 97 -  Not verifiable, no plagiarism...no mention of the year 1996.

I'll add more later, but if I remember correctly (again), the Tulsa World only lets you read ten articles per month for free. More to come... TCN7JM 18:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source 94 is from the OTA website, not the Tulsa World. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. TCN7JM 01:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it. I mixed up 94 and 95, I think. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a Page Not Found error on Source 96. Does that mean I've run out of free articles or that the link has moved? TCN7JM 12:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to have reorganized their entire website since the time that links were added to the article. ^#$%$%^#&... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check again. They seem to have added automatic redirects so you end up where you were supposed to. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It works perfectly fine now. TCN7JM 20:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source 10 seems to have moved as well. TCN7JM 21:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above fourteen sources are as many as I can view without going over the free views limit set by the Tulsa World. Can somebody else please take a look at six different sources once I'm done? TCN7JM 03:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody volunteers, I could potentially email six sources to you to check. I have all of the Tulsa World articles listed saved to my email. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at fourteen sources above. Go ahead and fix this stuff before I look at six more. I haven't decided which six I will look at yet. TCN7JM 23:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

  • 14: Replaced with a link to the PDF that's also linked on the same page, which has an actual title and no annoying/confusing JavaScript hatting things.
  • 19: What's wrong with "regardless" in this context? The toll was collected no matter whether you got on right next to it or at the beginning of the road. "Regardless" conveys that.
    I thought it was borderline plagiarism at the time, but it's fine, I guess. TCN7JM 02:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, okay, didn't know that was your concern. I fixed it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 37: It should be noted that Peoria Avenue, as it is named in Tulsa, is called Elm Street in Jenks, where the turnpike intersects it. (It's one of those things where the suburb names the street differently from the main city for whatever reason.) The exit is signed "Peoria–Elm", but calling it Peoria is technically an error on the newspaper's part, albeit probably a well-intentioned one meant to help readers unfamiliar with the Jenks area.
    I'd mention something like that in the article. TCN7JM 02:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 42: Assuming we're talking about Fighting toll roads—the date included in the article is the one that I have from the online database I retrieved it from. The 2007 date displayed on the Tulsa World website is probably an error, since it wouldn't make much sense to protest a new road fifteen years after it opened to traffic.
  • 87: Must have misread the source. Fixed.
  • 95: Fixed. Wasn't added by me.
  • 97: Again, the World has the wrong date on their article. My copy of the article gives a date of January 13, 1996.

—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great now, but I can't support just yet. I need six more (still undecided on which). TCN7JM 18:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I finally decided. I will be looking at Sources 61-66 momentarily. TCN7JM 18:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Scott sent me 62-67 by mistake, so I guess I'm reviewing them instead.

  1. Source 62 -  Verifiable, no plagiarism
  2. Source 63 -  Verifiable, no plagiarism
  3. Source 64 -  Verifiable, no plagiarism
  4. Source 65 -  Verifiable, no plagiarism
  5. Source 66 -  Verifiable, no plagiarism
  6. Source 67 -  Verifiable, no plagiarism

Now having looked at twenty sources, I feel I can support the article's promotion to A-Class. TCN7JM 19:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dough4872[edit]

Extended content

I will review the article. Dough4872 17:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  1. Since the turnpike is maintained by both OTA and ODOT, the infobox should mention that ODOT also maintains the road.
    I am not certain, since the ODOT-maintained portion is so short, it may not be significant enough to include. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically, infoboxes include all agencies that maintain parts of the road, regardless of length. Dough4872 13:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The sentence "The extension to the east opened in three parts, from 2001 to 2002." sounds awkward.
     Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "before bridging the Arkansas River into Tulsa" sounds awkward. Maybe change to "crossing" and change "crosses" in "crosses Polecat Creek" to "bridges".
     Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it really relevant to mention where the northern terminus of US 169 is? All that needs to be said here is that it heads north.
    This is done to emphasize the importance of US-169 and the significance of this being the southern terminus of such an extensive route. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "The highway next enters Broken Arrow,[3] then crosses over Haikey Creek." needs to be reworded. I would suggest replacing the comma with "and".
     Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I noticed the overuse of "then" in the route description. The word "then" does not need to be used to describe the progression of the route.
    Pared back some. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The route description seems kind of dry in just mentioning intersecting roads and towns. Maybe mention some landmarks that are near the road.
    I am not aware of any (but then, this may be because I am not all that familiar with Tulsa/Broken Arrow). It mostly goes through your typical suburban stuff. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The sentence " This was the ideal corridor for a freeway, due to its low right-of-way costs, comparable to more southerly corridors, further away from the urban core" is very choppy.
     Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "and around six that had accounts at the bank closed them.", what is the six referring to? This should be clarified.
    Changed to present wording due to GAN. It's obvious that the six refers to protesters. What else would it be referring to? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The sentence " As with the first section of the turnpike, tolls were waived for the weekend; the road was free until noon on December 18" sounds awkward.
    What makes it sound awkward? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to flow awkward with a comma and a semicolon. I would suggest rewording to "As with the first section of the turnpike, tolls were waived for the weekend, with the road being free until noon on December 18". Dough4872 15:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the present wording. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "The final segment of the extension, connecting New Orleans Street and the Muskogee Turnpike to the Will Rogers Turnpike, was scheduled to open August 16", did it open on August 16?
    See GAN. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Are there any more details that can be added pertaining to the specific groundbreaking of the sections of the turnpike?
    No. All details are included as covered by the Tulsa World. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The tolls are as of 2009, can this be updated to be as of 2013?
  14. Is the $3.50 toll for each barrier toll plaza or for traveling the entire road?
  15. Are cash and Pikepass fares the same at the sidegate toll plazas? This should be clarified.
  16. Can the locations of which exits have the sidegate toll plazas be clarified, either in the tolls section or the exit list? Dough4872 02:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All comments regarding the toll section have been addressed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article looks good now. Dough4872 14:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by SounderBruce[edit]

Images all check out and are formatted correctly within the article. I'd like to see more pictures for the history section (planning and/or construction), but I'll Support. SounderBruce 18:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SounderBruce here. I'd like to see at least one more picture in the History section if possible. TCN7JM 02:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would as well. However, the images that I have on hand are either too similar to the ones already posted or I can't say for sure where exactly they were taken. Additionally, they're all on the east extension, so I'd like to add more from the western and central segments of highway. Unfortunately, that means I'm going to have to go up to Tulsa for more photos, so it may be a while. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Imzadi1979[edit]

Review by Imzadi1979

I'll look at reference formatting later, but my review is based on a printed copy of this revision.

  • Lead looks good to me.
  • I'd prefer to see the counties added to the infobox.
  • Route description
    • Do we need the "the" in parenthesis after I-44? I just ask because I don't know that I've seen a "the" placed like that in other highway articles.
    • "The highway enters Jenks less than one mile east..." I would encourage a manually entered conversion here. In other articles where I've used similar phrasing, I've inserted the conversion as something like "(approximately X km)" using a rounded value.
    • My high school chemistry teacher would be proud of me for saying this, but no measurement is complete without a value and a unit. In discussing the AADT values at the end of the RD, the measurements lack units, which I assume are "vehicles".
  • History
    • Planning for the first segment
    • Construction
      • "Bids were opened ... in that November" sounds better to me.
      • ""The Creek Turnpike was initially posted with a 55-mile-per-hour (89 km/h) speed limit..." adjective form here. (That or flip it to "a speed limit of 55 mph (89 km/h)" if you'd like to abbreviate it.)
    • Opposition
      • "... to their community and to the environment as their concerns."
      • I'd flip the attribution of that one quote around to "said Tom Taylor, an area resident" to drop one of the commas.
      • I'd reword the discussion of closed bank accounts to read, "and around six closed their accounts." Just simplifies things, and the implication is that if they closed their accounts, they must have had them to close them.
      • Personally, I never use words for numbers 10 and above, and ages are always in years even for numbers 1 through 9. It's slightly jarring to read "one thousand signatures" and then "1,400 signatures" in the next line.
      • In the sentence about the crime, I dislike "broken into" instead of "burglarized"; it's a hanging preposition thing. If you're worried about repetition, "burglars" can become "vandals" or "thieves" as both are appropriate synonyms.
    • Environmental concerns
      • I'd pluralize "wetland" in the March 1990 sentence.
      • US Fish and Wildlife Service has "FWS" as an abbreviation that I'd use.
      • "nineteen-page" → "19-page"
      • ACE has already been given as the abbreviation (actually it should be "USACE" or "CoE") so I'd reduce "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" to the abbreviation.
      • There's a direct quote that's been modified to read "God only knows when [the Creek Turnpike]]'ll be completed", and if we're going to substitute text in the quote with a bracketed expansion, I would avoid the contraction.
    • Extensions
      • Nikkimaria has changed any %s in running prose in my past FACs to spell out the word "percent", so I'd change the "10%" to "10 percent".
      • Another "Turnpikes" that should be dropped to lowercase.
    • Later history
  • Tolls and Exit list sections look fine to me except one thing: "E. 96th St. S." when the others have "Street" spelled out.
  • References
    • Even when an edition or title specifies a year, or range of years, I'd still explicitly specify the year of publication. As an example, the 2003–04 edition of the MDOT map was updated for the 2004 printing to show the opening of a segment of the St. Joseph Valley Parkway. Also, the citation templates do output COinS metadata, so omitting the publication year does mean the metadata doesn't contain any date.
    • Citations that link to PDFs should have |format=PDF included in the templates.
    • Fn 1 and fn 7 have the accessdate in "Month DD, YYYY" format while the remainder of the references are using the ISO-style "YYYY-MM-DD" format for all dates. Personally, I prefer using the more standard date format for all references, but the key is consistency.
    • The FHWA NHS map should have a publication date listed on it someplace that should be included in the citation.
    • Who published fn 13?
    • FN 14 shouldn't be missing a publisher. If the staff at the OTA wrote it, I'd use |author=Staff and put OTA as the publisher; alternately you could repeat OTA as both author and publisher. If there's a specific office/division/bureau that could be listed as the author, that would be good too. Ditto fn 96
    • FN 98 has two GMaps citations in it. FN 4 does too. I'd use |link=no in the templates in fn 98 to suppress the link to Google in the last footnote. I would also use a more specific title in those two cases so they don't look the same.
    • One last comment about consistency. Not all newspapers use Title Case for headlines, and not all use Sentence case either. Personally, as a stylistic preference, I convert all headlines to Title Case for consistency, just as I reformat highway abbreviations away from the AP Stylebook-mandated "U.S. 41" or the hyphenated "US-41" used on some websites for consistency with the "US 41" used by the article text on Wikipedia articles for Michigan highways. Such minor changes are permissible, and make the footnotes look more polished.
    • Otherwise, the citations look quite good. Imzadi 1979 → 09:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is exactly the sort of small stuff I was afraid I'd missed. I'll work on fixing these over the next few days or so. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything should be done. Whew! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick thing, but footnotes 5, 6, and 9 could use dates/years of publication, if possible. Otherwise all looks good. Imzadi 1979 → 02:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 08:21, 15 April 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/Creek_Turnpike&oldid=1206625712"