Jump to content

Talk:U.S. Route 223/GA2

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC) The proper approach is to request a second opinion if you disagree with the review, not to start a review. WP:IAR does not explain your conduct.[reply]

Then I shall withdraw this review as well. Imzadi 1979 → 07:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't avoid a content dispute by repeatedly "withdrawing" a GAN. The question outstanding is how to interpret the sources regarding plans to include I-73 in the 2011 Highway Bill, both in the lead paragraph and in the Future section. If you want a second opinion, please let me know. However, I have spent substantial time on this GA review and I think that we owe it to Wikipedia to sort this out. I am placing this on hold.Racepacket (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion Wanted

[edit]

We want a second opinion on two very narrow questions: 1) Should the sentence in the lead be changed from " Congress has designated this corridor as part of Interstate 73 (I-73), although neither state has plans at this time to complete the freeway." to " Congress has designated this corridor as part of Interstate 73 (I-73), although neither state is actively working on completing the freeway."

2) In the Future Section, adding a sentence at the end saying, "Any future work remains subject to the availability of federal funding of I-73."

The sources relevant to these changes are:

We look forward to your advice. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RP - I believe Imzadi1979 has requested that this GA-review be withdrawn at this time on several occasions, yet you keep pestering him on the issue. I concur with him that in that if he feels the process should not go any further right now, he should be entitled to that without you dragging this out further. It has been stated for years that Interstate 73 will not happen in Michigan or Ohio. Imzadi1979's sources back this up. Given the economic circumstances of Michigan and Ohio, where would they get the money to support anything related therein to Interstate 73? This is why it might be worthwhile to respect Imzadi1979's wishes and withdraw the GA-review process for U.S. Route 223. DanTheMan474 (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are WP:OWN issues, which we can ignore. Many people have invested a lot of time in this article, and absent this one issue, it is close to geting the GA, so we are going to proceed. The point of the sources cited above is that the Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is trying to forge a coalition to include I-73 in the 2011 HIghway Bill and that Adrian, Michigan businessmen are lobbying for that federal funding effort. The question is how to reflect that in the article. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're hellbent to continue this process, then you've forced me to reply. Now then, that first i73.com page is purely a list of state legislators and counties along the proposed route. That there are 3 board members from Michigan on an advocacy group that will obviously attempt to spin everything they do to indicate the road will be built doesn't mean that the road will be built. I fully agree with Wizardman's post to your talk page in reply to your WP:CANVASSed opinion: All of this is great information for Interstate 73, not U.S. Route 223. Did you not read [1] where it says that MDOT considered (past tense, all official studies for MI ceased in 2001) three options? One option didn't use US 223 at all. One used only part of it, and one used the I-73/I-74/I-75 association's mapped corridor. These are facts, supported by secondary sources that the coalition doesn't reflect on their website. MDOT released a press release just 6 months later that they've stopped considering the freeway. Both are currently sources in the article.
Turning to the press sources you've listed, the first only mentions the proposed endpoint in Michigan. It says that LaHood wants the governors to meet, but LaHood can't force Michigan to join in. The second only says that an advocacy group has updated its focus to include I-75. The article under review here is not Interstate 75 in Michigan. The third talks about South Carolina and the region. Last time I checked, Michigan was in the Great Lakes or the Midwest, not the South. Until such time as we actually see what any highway bill says about I-73, including it in this article (U.S. Route 223) is speculation and fails WP:CRYSTAL.
If you want to add this information to the Interstate 73 article, feel free. It's a perfect fit. As of 2001, the agencies that actually maintain the roadway that's the subject of this article have abandoned consideration of I-73. There's an advocacy group that pushes for the expansion of US 131's freeway northward. That doesn't mean that MDOT will be studying or engineering further freeway miles. In fact, the expansion of US 131 on the south end is a two-lant bypass of Constantine, not more freeway, even after the legislature and then-Governor Granholm instructed MDOT to restudy building a freeway there.
When there are concrete developments that affect US 223 in Michigan and Ohio, then this article should be updated. Until then, it's all speculation or details best left to the proper article, I-73. Imzadi 1979 → 18:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me state this now. When an article goes to FAC, the nominator is free to reject any or all suggestions for "improvement". The FAC delegates will weigh the arguments. We don't have a third party here, but I can still reject your suggestions as not applicable to this article. They're all great suggestions for information to add to Interstate 73. Please add them there. We have no guarantees at this time that Congress will include funding for I-73. Nor do we have guarantees that any funding would include Michigan and Ohio. Congress doesn't convene until tomorrow, and the House will be dealing with organizational stuff and the GOP plan to repeal the health care bill in the near future. A transportation bill is not yet on any agenda, except as talking points in a bureaucrat's speeches 3 months ago in a state that is actively building I-73. (You seem to forget that your press sources are all located in South Carolina. Find something from Michigan or Ohio, and we'll talk.) Now then, I have withdrawn this article from consideration. Please respect that wish. I have other things to do for the remainder of my vacation in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Imzadi 1979 → 18:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining the source of your misunderstanding about the GA review process. Obviously, GA differs from FAC because GA involves just one reviewer, while FAC involves as many reviewers as possible. In a GA, the reviewer must test all of the assumptions and the sourcing, breath and focus of the article. That may make some nominators uncomfortable, but it is an essential part of building the encyclopedia. The nominator has no right to shop for a GA reviewer, and has no right to unlaterally "reject" concerns and objections. Just as any editor has the right to edit or suggest changes to any article, and people work toward consensus if there is disagreement, so there is suppose to be an effort to reach consensus during the GA review process. The GA nominator cannot "pick up his marbles and go home" to shop for a different GA reviewer. (This is very similar to the FAC where all concerns are addressed on their merits instead of saying "I don't like you so I'm not going to respond to your FAC comments.") We can achieve consensus here.
As for your claims of speculation, Ray LaHood is Secretary of Transportation, not just "some bureaucrat," and I am not dictating that the article say what will happen, but rather avoid creating the false impression that everyone agrees that the project is dead. There are sources saying that MDOT put it on hold pending funding and that people are working to make that funding available from the Federal Government. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no misunderstanding. I've been nominating and reviewing a wide range of articles through this process for 3 years now. The point is that, by default, there is one review and one nominator. At least with the other process, there is an arbiter. In neither process though is the nominator required to implement all suggestions exactly to satisfy the reviewer(s). (GAN allows, and to a degree encourages, second parties to contribute to a review whether they sign up as the reviewer or not. That others don't do so regularly is another story.) All editors to any article are free to reject suggestions at any stage of an articles development. In an intentionally obvious example for the sake of a discussion, if I were to state, "Please correct this article to reflect that the sky is purple" and cite a photo showing a purple sky, you would be free to reject that suggestion. Now, once again intentionally obvious here, the sky is not normally purple, so you'd be solid ground to reject that suggestion. At some point we'd either agree, or at least agree to disagree, and move on. The point is, that it is not the reviewer's decision that A, B, and C must be changed or the article can't pass. It is the reviewer's decision that A, B, and C should be changed, even if the nominator changes B in a different way, or the change to C is not made in the end.
Yes, a GA nominator can "pick up his marbles and go home". Any editor at any time must be free to quit. This is a voluntary project. There is nothing mandatory here. The GA reviewer is half (50%) of the equation, not 51+% and entitled to control. A request, if I may. Please stop with the false "shopping for a reviewer" diatribe. Either produce evidence that I have asked someone to review the article (which you can't because I haven't, but as you should know I can't prove that because a negative can't always be absolutely proven) or retract that accusation. That you focus on this "issue" is bad faith and bordering on a unfounded, personal attack. End that now. And yes, one possible outcome in any discussion is "no consensus". A nominator must be free to disagree, just as the reviewer must be free to disagree that the article, at the time of nomination, does or does not meet the criteria (which is essentially a disagreement with the implied "this nominated article meets the criteria as it stands") or that implemented changes to the article have not satisfied the original concern. Nominators at FAC are free to tell the FAC delegates to withdraw the nomination. Actually, any editor can perform the mechanics of the withdrawal (so long as they know the steps to take). As GAN has no delegates, any withdrawal has to be performed by one of the two parties to the review.
Now then, on to the article itself. There's some hyperbole to the statement that LaHood is a "bureaucrat", but on some matters, he's no more powerful than one. Congress controls the federal pursestrings, not LaHood, although the talk of ending earmarks may change that to place funding distribution into department hands. (Again with our issues of future uncertainty.) The source that used "on hold" and "pending future funding" is the MDOT press release from 2001 stating that MI ended its study. A 2007 news article, from South Carolina but specifically discussing Michigan and Ohio, uses much different language. Various statements from the I-73/I-74 Coalition (all officers are from SC, NC or VA) have stated that they're "struggling" to get Michigan on board. They even changed their name to include I-75 (which is part of the legislated corridor, but like I-94 to Chicago being included in the I-69 corridor, that is no guarantee of dual signage) in an effort to entice MI support. Well, as far as US 223 goes, such support based on I-75 doesn't necessarily mean anything. (I-75 can receive USDOT/FHWA funding for improvements without I-73 signs so long as that section of roadway stays in the legislative definition. That is assuming that the Coalition's lobbying efforts bear fruit for I-75.) As far as US 223 goes, the 3 MI board members for the coalition include a city planner in Lansing, the president of a chamber of commerce and a former state senator. (Raymond Basham could not run for re-election because of term limits.[2]). I can find no record of advocacy by Sen. Basham for I-73, even though he serves(d) on this board. Rather it seems he's been busy working on the Detroit River International Crossing. Lansing is not on US 223, and in fact, the highway in the city that is part of the I-73 corridor (US 127) is already build as a freeway. Lansing could see no change beyond some shiny new signs.
A search of the Detroit News for the years since 1999 (in other words, as far back as I can access) turns up one article about Interstate 73 from March 23, 2000, with the title "Activists fight interstate linking Michigan, S. Carolina" The article discusses the formation of a group fighting the freeway, which is hardly a shock. M-6 provoked a similar response in the 1980s during one round of its perpetual studies and engineering. A Grand Rapids Press article announcing MDOT's cancellation of the study, with agreement from ODOT, states: "Tuesday's announcement did not come as a surprise. Michigan Department of Transportation officials have said they were backing away from plans to build Int. 73 and were leaning toward potential improvements on U.S. 127 and U.S. 223 between the two cities." There is just a distinct absence of discussion of this proposed highway in the state, at this time. Dead is dead, and unless something changes I can't describe if any better than "dead" for Michigan. South Carolina on the other hand... that's different but this is the US 223 article, and not I-73. Imzadi 1979 → 07:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the two questions posted by Racepacket:

  1. First I will explain why the wording of the sentence in question should not be changed from the first option to the second option, then offer a third option. To use the word "actively working" might confuse the reader by suggesting the two states might be passively working on the project. There is no evidence to suggest active or passive work by the proper organizations, which in this case are MDOT and ODOT. USDOT and, in general, the federal government are not the proper organizations; all they do is serve an advisory and funding role. The federal governments cannot force the state highway departments to build the Interstate; they can only entice them with funding. Clearly, there are a group of states in the South that are eager to accept federal funding to build a freeway; however, a subset of states doing it does not mean all states are doing it or even contemplating doing it. A group of Adrian businessmen is also not a proper organization because the businessmen are lobbyists, not construction workers or state highway officials.
    I can see how the verb "plans" could be problematic. Therefore, I suggest changing the sentence to the following:
    • "Congress has designated this corridor as part of Interstate 73 (I-73), although neither state intends to complete the freeway."
  2. The additional sentence proposed for the Future section should not be added. Michigan and Ohio are not waiting for federal funding to work on this project. Neither of the highway departments is doing any preparatory work to make the construction of a freeway a reality. If the two states were seeking federal funding, you would expect plans be available and ready to execute once the funding arrives. There is no indication the two states intend to move ahead with any such project.

If these two issues are the only ones holding this article back from being a Good Article, then I strongly suggest that once consensus has been reached on their resolution, that changes be implemented and the article promoted. I also suggest that after the resolution of this GAN, Racepacket voluntarily desist from reviewing any of Imzadi1979's GANs for a period of time, perhaps six months, until the bad feelings suffered and wounds inflicted in this conflict have healed and both editors have learned their lessons from these unfortunate events.  VC  18:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some digging through the press reports on the I-73/I-74/I-75 Coalition website and found the last news story they list that actually discusses the situation in Michigan and Ohio. "South takes the lead: I-73 will push from South to North"] from the Marion Star and Mullins Enterprise on Aug 22, 2007. There is quite the write up on the situation quoting various roadgeek websites like AARoads and roadfan.com To quote the article:

With numerous sources indicating that construction of the northern leg appears remote at best, hearing local officials continue to refer to I-73/74 as “an interstate corridor from Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., to Myrtle Beach, S.C.” can seem misleading. Mitchell Metts, I-73 project manager for the South Carolina Department of Transportation, explains, "The road continues to be defined by those parameters because the federal law is written that it will run from there to here." Interstate 73 in its entirety is part of High Priority Corridor 5: I-73/74 North-South Corridor. Its designation is written into law. "However,” Metts continues, "the law left it up to each individual state to determine how and when, and each state was expected to fund construction independently.”

Racepacket, your proposed changes echo the very issues the SCDOT official and the news article find misleading. Now, using this news article in the US 223 article, we can quote exactly when MDOT took down their website, thus ending MI's state involvement in this freeway. Anything else should be added to the I-73 article, not this one. I can support "intends" as a substitute word in the lead, and I agree with none of your proposed changes to the Future section. The only thing I would no change there is the addition of the 2002 timeframe of the website removal, if we feel that such a thing clarifies just how dead this highway is in Michigan. Imzadi 1979 → 19:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we reach consensus on the lead and then come up with a sentence that captures the state of uncertainty about I-73? Racepacket (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like VC's word substitution for the lead. To bookend on to VC's comments about "enticing" states with funding for projects, a joint news story by NBC and USA Today (details) shows that even when a project has had funding earmarked, that funding isn't or can't always be spent. Funding earmarked for "State Road 31" in Indiana can't be used because the road in question is actually US 31. There is additional funding available to states for projects, but isn't enough to actually fund the project, so it doesn't get spent at all.
VC has hit on the crux of the situation: MDOT and ODOT (or OTC if I-73 were revived as a part of the Ohio Turnpike system as once planned) would need to be doing studies, identifying routings, figuring out where they want to put interchanges, setting up public comment periods, etc. If there were political will in MI or OH but no funding for those activities, MDOT's director or designee would be serving on the Coalition board. Other MI or OH officials would be lobbying Congress for funds to pay for the studies. (MDOT was given $5m in the late 1990s to fund its initial studies.) The news stories out of SC would include more mentions of MI beyond the legally defined corridor terminus. Hell, the news stories in Michigan that discuss the 5-year transportation plans would mention it like they do for M-231, which is the only new highway on MDOT's agenda, and for which the funding is causing delays in building it. (At last check, the bridge that was supposed to be done by now is supposed to be started later this year, and the rest of the road is on hold, but designed. MDOT has been acquiring the right-of-way as well as it can under the funding situation.)
We will never achieve any consensus so long as you continue to insist on any changes remotely indicating that I-73 is going to be built along US 223 in any timeframe. Until something actually changes to indicate a shift in Michigan, that's pure speculation and fails the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL. Advocacy groups saying "look, we have Michigan members on the board!" or "we're working hard to get Michigan on board" doesn't mean anything without results. When the group's lobbying produces comments that are more positive than a DOT staffer saying she'd “have to think about who might know where it stands now. It’s been so long since the topic came up,” then we have something to add. LaHood's comments last October were only that he and USDOT would support the decisions of the governors involved, and he urged all of the states to meet. No meeting or conference call is currently scheduled, and there's no guarantee that should one be held, that Michigan or Ohio will express interest. Of course my biggest issue: ALL of this is really more suited to the I-73 article itself. The article on US 223 really needs to summarize a few key facts:
  • Congress set up this highway in 1995 that was supposed to replace US 223.
  • US 223 would need to be converted into a freeway to accommodate the change.
  • When MDOT started to study it in 2000, one of their alternatives would not have replaced US 223 with a freeway, and one might have only replaced part of it.
  • All further study of the new highway was stopped in 2001, and never officially discussed again.
The politics of the road and the other stuff really applies to the I-73 concept, not US 223, unless/until serious plans are set in place. The article summarizes these facts already. If anything, we can trim some of the stuff to give a more concise definition of the roads and their condition (A reader should have already figured out that US 223 isn't a freeway by the time they're reading that paragraph, for instance.) That would allow us to add in the time frame for when the I-73 website came down, and maybe the quote above from the ODOT staffer.
The fact that MDOT removed the website tells me that the project is dead. After all, M-6 was opened in 2004, and its website is still active. MDOT even gave me 4 of the photos from the photo gallery on the site to include in that article. If there was any political will for this, MDOT would have left the I-73 website running with a statement along the lines of "Further study has been stopped. When we get more money, we'll pick up where we've left off." There would be news stories quoting people from MDOT or ODOT saying, "we still want to build it, we're just looking for the money" when the topic of building new roads vs. repairing existing roads comes up. Granholm actually froze all new construction in MDOT's budget once. She released only half of the funding to restore projects and send the rest into repair projects. I-73 never popped up in those discussions. US 223 doesn't even pop up on the News or Press archives for the last decade, and major road projects in the state hit at least one of those papers. (The US 131 freeway bypass of Cadillac and Manton made the Press and that's 100 miles north of Grand Rapids.) The Lansing State Journal has no articles about it in their archives for the last decade, and I-73 is supposed to run through that town. Ditto the Toledo Blade. Even the Daily Telegram in Adrian has nothing newer about I-73 than 2001 except for repeating LaHood's comments in South Carolina last October. It's dead, but no one has written the obituary on it yet. Maybe when MDOT cancelled the study they had intentions to resume it, but it's been 10 years. If something in Congress changes later this year, then we update the article. Until then, this article's basic content on the issue is sufficient. Anything else belongs in another article.
So, that's the deal. You should know my position very well by now. Imzadi 1979 → 07:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I have not tried to dictate specific language for the I-73 section. Instead, I have called attention to news reports that suggest that it is not as dead as the current wording says. I think that Viridicalculus' suggestion for the lead is fine, but even he suggests that we work on consensus for the I-73 section. I suggest that the article recognize the overall uncertainty in the future fate of I-73, either by softening the current sentences or by adding a new sentence to explain the uncertainty. Racepacket (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, yes, you have. VC's stating that his opinion is more in line with my opinion of the article. As I show below, you're the hold out now when other editors who have commented on the article don't agree with your position. Imzadi 1979 → 08:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and pasting Racepacket's last statement from above to have the question and response next to each other: Why don't we reach consensus on the lead and then come up with a sentence that captures the state of uncertainty about I-73? Racepacket (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I will address the two questions on which you asked for a second opinion once again:[reply]

  1. I suggested we use the verb "intends" as a replacement for "plans" in the lead. It appears Imzadi1979 agreed to this change. I believe there is a consensus here; if there is not, then you are the remaining objector and I want to hear your reasoning why you object to this change.
  2. We do not need a sentence that captures the state of uncertainty about I-73 because there is none. The project, for all intents and purposes, is dead in Michigan and Ohio. That is not going to change no matter how much evidence Imzadi1979 posts here to continue to try to prove that. While I agree that anything is possible, here on Wikipedia we do not deal in the possible, we deal with evidence. I agree with Imzadi1979 here. Once again, I think we have a consensus here; if there is not, then you are the remaining objector and I want to hear your reasoning why you object to this change, or in this case, lack of a change.  VC  19:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you V, for your comments. My sources are:

So there is still active interest within Michigan to pursue the project. This source says they are lobbying to include it in the 2011 Transportation Bill as well as pursuing public-private partnerships. I don't know if this will succeed and we should not speculate as to what will ultimately happen. I don't share the confidence that this is only a SC/NC/VA initiative. However, I think the article should capture the current state of uncertainty about the future. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would be WP:SYNTH. Politicians on a board != actively constructing or planning a highway. They could, they may, and at that point we will report it. Wikipedia is not a crystall ball, and doesn't use a report on A and B to assume C. The phrases you used are synonymous with "indefinitely". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Floydian is correct that we must avoid WP:SYNTH. How about changing "abandoned" to "postponed until funding becomes available" in the last sentence of the Future section? Racepacket (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond Basham is no longer a state senator, First elected in 2002 and reelected in 2006, term limits prevented him from running for reelection in 2010. So, that means the coalition does not have an elected politician from Michigan on its board. (A Google search fails to turn up any advocacy on I-73 by Sen. Basham during his tenure in the Michigan Legislature, and he served on the Senate Transportation Committee.) As to Ray LaHood's comments, until such a group of members of Congress forms, and until they lobby for funding for I-73 in MI/OH, there's no impact to US 223, the subject of this article. That's information best left to the I-73 article itself. Now then, VC agrees that I-73 here is dead. Floydian's opinion on reading the sources is that they come to "indefinitely", which is too low of a level of certainty for inclusion in the US 223 article vs. the I-73 article. You solicited an external opinion of the article from Wizardman (talk · contribs) where he's stated: "However, after reading the sources, the possibility of being included in the transportation bill is speculation now, and would be better put in the I-73 article rather than this one, so if that's the only outstanding issue then it probably is a GA. Ideal solution would be to find an actual outside reviewer to look at this article, but so few people review anymore that it would be nigh impossible." A handful of other reviewers, unsolicited, have commented here about the article. Now then, how many more editors need to comment before you agree that the article is fine as it is, until such time as some thing concrete actually changes that directly affects the subject of this article, US 223? Imzadi 1979 → 08:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current question is whether there is a more accurate word than "abandoned"? Racepacket (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't. The record is crystal clear that that there is no movement in MI or OH to resurrect this project. If there was, there would be some mention of it in the press for the last ten years in the Toledo Blade, the Detroit News, the Lansing State Journal or the Adrian Daily Telegram. MDOT has been slowly working to upgrade the section of US 127 between Ithaca and St. Johns that's only built to expressway, not full freeway, standards. Since this road is also supposed to be part of a future I-73, there would have been at least some mention of I-73 in connection to that road if MDOT had any intentions of still building this. Otherwise there has to be some massive conspiracy to hide a multi-million-dollar project from the press and the public, the very public whose comments are required as part of the approval process, and the very press that covered several other freeway projects in the state in the intervening years. Imzadi 1979 → 18:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yes, "no plans", as there are no plans! "postponed until funding becomes available" assumes there is a report out there that states that the highway is planned, designed and is to be constructed when funding is allotted towards its construction. None of your sources indicate this; they indicate a committee that handles something that, perhaps 10 years ago, was more ascertained.
If the plans are on hold until further notice, then this is "indefinitely", which means there are currently no plans to do anything. I had the same situation with Ontario Highway 407 recently, where many editors insisted on mentioning the extension east, which though it was a given, was not in any plans at the time. Unless there is a source which verbatim connects US 223 with a current and ongoing plan (even an environmental assessment) to build I-73 north into Michigan, there are no plans. How many independent opinions will it take? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR -- 36 kb... Seriously guys? Racepacket - all of the information you are trying to push into this article belongs in the I-73 article. Period. This article is specifically regarding U.S. Route 223, not I-73. Adding the information to this article would violate GA Criterion 3b - focused. I'm very tempted to WP:TROUT the whole lot of you for wasting so much time about adding information that doesn't belong here. Thats my two cents. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on today's changes, which reflects the helpful 2nd opinions of a number of editors, the article now meets all of the GA criteria. Congratulations. Racepacket (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Route_223/GA2&oldid=1137276638"