Talk:Farm to Market Road 1709

Farm to Market Road 1709 was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 18, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
July 8, 2015	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

U.S. Roads: State highways / Texas Low‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	Texas
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Wikipedians in Texas may be able to help!

Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth articles

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Assessment comments

I found this article with conflicting information. The infobox said it was 5.600 miles (9.012326 km) in length, but the junction list has mileposts for junctions up to 9.0 miles (14.5 km). In actuality, it is 11.955 miles (19.240 km) long according to the TxDOT designation files. Those files also have information on the historical changes made to the highway, which allowed me to write a basic history section. The problem is that TxDOT has UR 1709 (which replaced FM 1709 in 1995) running westward to I-35, but this article seems to omit that fact.

Another concern is the "Attractions" section, which should be integrated into the RD section. I would revise the RD to start at the junction with I-35 and work eastward. Describe the surroundings along the route of the highway, noting these attractions. Does this roadway pass through fields, forests, farms, desert, industrial, commercial or residential areas? Once this is done, the attractions subsection will be eliminated because all of those items will be noted in the west-to-east progression of the roadway.

Several of the items in the junction list can be eliminated. We normally stick to junctions with other state-maintained highways only. If the two county roads are worth including, they could remain. We need a citation for those milepost numbers, and hopefully, we could provide updated numbers from TxDOT that match the precision of the length. The last milepost on a junction list should match the overall length of a highway.

Finally, it appears that the two cities have done some work to this highway; I would expand the history a little bit to account for these changes. Note that routine maintenance, like repaving, is not normally noted in history sections, but reconfigurations or reroutings are. Imzadi 1979 → 20:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I was somewhat rushing when I was creating part of this article.

Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name 01:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awardgive (talk • contribs)

Looking at the article as currently written, I don't think it can be rated higher than C-class by USRD standards. The route description is unsourced, prose can use tweaking, and there are other minor items to address. I have removed the USRD reassess tag and left as 'C' for now. Happy to take another look if improvements are made--just ping my talk. -- LJ ↗ 07:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on some copy editing, and now that I've completed my edits, I've bumped the assessment. The following was changed:

I removed the unneeded citations in the RD section. Since those features are marked on Google Maps, there's no need to use what are slightly questionable online sources to cite the existence of those landmarks.
To the best of my knowledge, I added the cities to the location column of the junction list. Please adjust them if I got something wrong.
I gave the article some general copy editing, fixing things like it's/its (the first is a contraction for "it is", but "its" is the possessive form).
I also inserted some missing non-breaking spaces and fixed some issues with abbrevations. (Please spell out the full designation the first time a class of highway is mentioned and add the abbreviation afterwards in parentheses so our readers not familiar with highways will understand the abbreviations conventions.)
I also removed some adjectives ("very", "highly", "simple", etc.) that aren't appropriate to an encyclopedic style of writing.

With those changes, we have a solid article, fully cited article worthy of a B-Class designation. Imzadi 1979 → 05:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Farm to Market Road 1709/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 01:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Cut down on the bolding in the lead. Only "Farm to Market Road 1709 (FM 1709)" and "Urban Road 1709 (UR 1709)" should be bolded.

Try not to use "FM 1709" in every sentence at the beginning of the route description. Try using other words such as "the road", "the route", or "the highway".

Do not use "then" to describe progression of the route in the route description.

The sentence "The road continues through Southlake, passing several large, expensive neighborhoods, Bicentennial Park and the small, private Flying Cap Valley Airport, before passing through Southlake Town Square." is wordy and needs to be split.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Can some more details about the physical surroundings be added to the lead?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I will put the article on hold for some fixes to be made. Dough 48 72 01:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that many of the problems have been addressed.

Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I went through and made some more copyedits. I am now ready to pass the article. Dough 48 72 04:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all signed

Is there a reason this is only signed east of US 377? --NE2 20:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Farm to Market Road 1709. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110506014746/http://www.ci.southlake.tx.us/southlakegovernment/city_departments/capital_improvement_program/Southlake_Blvd_Improvements.htm to http://www.ci.southlake.tx.us/southlakegovernment/city_departments/capital_improvement_program/Southlake_Blvd_Improvements.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Farm to Market Road 1709. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]