Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 40 in Tennessee/archive2

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) 26 May 2023 [1].

Interstate 40 in Tennessee[edit]

Nominator(s): Bneu2013 (talk) 04:42, 24 April 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 over a year ago, and recently underwent peer review. This is the second FA attempt; the first was archived due to lack of responses, but since then, all of the outlying comments have been addressed, and a few other minor improvements have been made. If promoted, this would be the first article about a highway in Tennessee to become a featured article. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination[edit]

  • Hi Bneu2013, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:Moabdave[edit]

I have finished a first pass review of the article. I am satisfied the sourcing meets FA standards. The article is very thorough, one of the most comprehensive articles I've ever read, on any subject. It shows you've done a lot of research. All my issues have been resolved, except the below mentioned recommendation for a copyeditor to fix the minor stylistic stuff. I've pointed out a few things, but there's more. As an example, I don't know how many times I read the phrase "short segment". Need to find other ways of saying that without using the same words over and over. There are copyeditors who are good at stuff like this; I'm not one of them. As such I'll support on the basis of source checks and comprehensiveness, and leave the judgement of has it been sufficiently copy-edited to someone else. Dave (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General style notes

The general trend I'm seeing with this article is the sourcing is quite good (with the exception noted below regarding the use of Google Maps, which is subject to an open RFC) and the research is meticulous. So I agree this article is close to FA standards. However, IMHO this article needs a top to bottom copyedit. While I've given some suggestions below, copyediting is not one of my talents. I usually ask the services of someone else to copyedit my work, and would suggest recruiting someone for this article.

Lead
  • 2,556.61 miles - Might want to source that figure. (can just use the source used for the national I-40 article)
    • Done.
  • Footnote a - we have an article for milepost equation. Rather than explaining the concept in a foot note, you could just link to that article and be done with it. Granted, that article is in rough shape and needs some TLC. Though if the source used in footnote a could be used to improve the article on milepost equations, that IMHO would be the best solution, as it would still explain the concept without requiring a tangential footnote in this article.
    • I had no idea such an article (or a concept) existed. I think it's important to list why the mileposts are offset, as opposed to the plain fact that they are. Also, mileposts on Tennessee Interstates are posted every two tenths of a mile as opposed to every mile in most states, so this offset would likely be more obvious to motorists familiar with this route than others. The reason for this offset isn't always obvious to everyone. That being said, do you think "offset this discrepancy" would be an appropriate link to milepost equation? Bneu2013 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • My $.02 is footnotes to inline text are disruptive to an article's flow and I try to avoid them when I can. I was offering a suggestion to eliminate the footnote. Thinking about this a bit more, I think in the lead I would give the mileage figure, without explanation. The prose below already mentions a change in alignment without the plans, so IMHO the footnote doesn't add much. The specific explanation could be given in the junction list section, where there is a natural break in the flow of the article because of the table. I would work in a link to milepost equation, as that is where the topic is (or presumably someday will be) explained in more detail (again granted right now the article isn't much to read). Also I'd remove this line from the footnote, regardless of where the text ends up: "To offset this discrepancy, the first four mileposts are numbered 1, 1A, 1B, and 1C."
        • Done - moved to the exit list and removed the last sentence. Provided link. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All my issues resolved in the lead. Dave (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Route description

*"making it the eighth-longest stretch of Interstate Highway within a single state,[b]" I'm not really a fan of trivia like this. It's been my experience stuff like this tends to attract vandal and "you forgot about {insert irrelevant detail here}" type edits. My advice is to remove it. Though if others disagree I'll cede.

    • I was on the fence about this, especially due to how close it is in length to Interstate 80 in Nebraska (and the fact that different measuring tools can give negligibly different results). I do think it is important to list that it was originally planned as the longest stretch of Interstate Highway within a single state east of the Mississippi, however. That being said, should I maybe repeat that the Tennessee segment is the longest segment on I-40 here? Bneu2013 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
West Tennessee

*The length of the De Soto bridge should be sourced, unless source 5 (at the end of the paragraph) covers this.

    • Done. Note that some sources report the length as 3.3 miles. That appears to be the combined length of the main span (which is 1.8 miles long) and a number of ramps near the eastern end (including a few ghost ramps). Bneu2013 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a short distance beyond" that's a problematic statement, short distance means something very different to someone from Alaska or Nevada as it does to someone in New Jersey. I'd just delete it. IMHO it doesn't add much. Also, this paragraph is sourced to Google Maps. I don't see anything wrong with what you've done personally. However, there is an RFC (Request For Comment - Wikipedia's equivalent of a voter referendum) open on this very subject. While the voting is still open, the initial results appear to show no solid consensus on weather this is or is not an appropriate use of Google Maps. As such be aware you likely have a target on your back by trying to promote your article to Featured Article status while that vote is open (or if it fails). I personally prefer the state level Benchmark Atlases myself for a route description myself, as they have 3-4 sets of maps for each state, (recreational atlas, topo, etc.) I've found the recreational section of that atlas to have more stuff explicitly stated for describing the route of a long distance road. The down side is they cost $35/state, and all the ones I have in my collection are in the western US, so I don't have the Tennessee edition to loan.
    • There are a total of four uses of "short distance beyond" and 18 uses of "short distance". Do you suggest I get rid of all of them? Also, I do have a Tennessee road atlas from 1999; that wouldn't be too outdated for most of this, but I would prefer a newer edition. I do have a couple of US and Canada road atlases too. While these don't provide much more information than Google Maps, they do list the distances between interchanges. In addition to the county-level maps, TDOT does provide city-wide maps that are more precise than the county maps, with such information as precise distances between interchanges. However, the large cities are split between multiple maps, and I don't want to clog up the article with excessive citations. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't gotten that far into the article yet, but yes, in general I avoid relative phrases like "a short distance". Also, given the way things are going at the maps RFC, I would strongly encourage the use of TDOT maps and/or state level Atlases (such as DeLorme or whatever) when possible. Even before the maps RFC I only used Google Maps as a last resort in my articles.Dave (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I've reworded the four usages of "short distance beyond". I'm going to wait until you get further into your review before rewording the remaining usages of "short distance". In the meantime, I'm going to substitute most, if not all, of the remaining uses of Google Maps. In some places the usages are probably redundant anyways. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Update - removed all usages of "short distance". Bneu2013 (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Memphis
  • "where a pair or flyover ramps transfer its path to the northeast" - That's a bit rough. Any way to smooth that out?
    • Done.
  • "Entering a long straightaway" - I'd strike that, again long is relative.
    • Done.
Middle Tennessee and Nashville sections
  • "several steep ascents and descents," again steep is a relative term. To this western US person, if it's "steep" that means there's at least one runaway truck ramp, minimum. IMHO, either be more descriptive with words like steep or cut from the article. Similar verbose phrases with relative terms include "long viaduct" "A few miles later, I-40 enters Wilson County and, after a short distance,
    • Made recommended changes. By steep, I essentially meant the same thing, minus the runaway truck ramps. Essentially, in the Eastern US, from my understanding, a grade is considered "steep" if it is difficult for large trucks to ascend, and the descent warrants warning signs. After looking it over, that is not true of all of these grades, so good catch. If I understand correctly, "viaduct" in the common usage refers to a longer than average bridge, especially in an urban setting, although this words seems to be most common in the western US. Is that how you understand it? Lastly, I replaced the final strike with "then" to clarify that the SR 171 interchange is not directly across the Wilson County line (it's about 2-3 miles beyond). Any issue with that? Bneu2013 (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern Nashville Basin, Eastern Highland Rim, and Cumberland Plateau
  • Again a lot of relative words. However, "begins a steep ascent over a few miles where the eastbound lanes gain a truck climbing lane" is a good example of how to describe steep so it has meaning.
    • Done. Both Cumberland Plateau ascents are also inarguably steep, with truck lanes planned for both, and I believe a runaway truck ramp in the works for the western one.
Eastern Tennessee
  • "containing what some describe". This needs to be re-worded, "some" is a Weasel word. This is sourced to a University of Tennessee article by Moore. If the article describes the view as such, directly attribute it to the paper or Moore, rather than "some".
    • I have considered "containing dramatic views of the Tennessee Valley below", but "dramatic" also sounds weaselly. Even though it is hard to deny this if you have ever traveled this section. Let me know what you think. This view is actually shown in the photo in this section, although the clouds obscure some of it. I actually plan to get an updated photo of this section on a clear day, even though it will probably be at least a few weeks before I can do so. The appearance of the road has actually changed since this photo was taken, with additional stripings and warning signs for this curve. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The best thing to to in that case is attribute the words to someone else. If Moore describes it as dramatic, just quote him (directly or indirectly). Dave (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Moore is now quoted in the article. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Knoxville

"Gradually ascending a steep ridge" - that's a bit clunky. I get it, but maybe think of a better way to say that.

Fixed.
Music Highway.

IMHO this is the most interesting part of the Route Description section. I'd move this to be the first sub-section. But that's just a friendly suggestion.

I'm hesitant to do that because I haven't seen that this is a common practice. A while ago I actually began drafting a section about honorary designations of the route in my sandbox. I think we should include something about this, but I don't want the article to get too long. If included, I am leaning towards combining the "Music Highway" section with this. What do you think? Bneu2013 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day you're the one that is defending the article as I, and others, pick at it. So it needs to be in a format you feel comfortable defending, and if you don't like a suggestion, so be it, that's your choice. At the project pages at WP:USRD, there is an evolving set of guidelines based on what has worked well and not in the past. But they are guidelines, not policy. As an example, one of my successful FAC nominations is U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. It had and has sections not contained in the "suggested formula" on those pages. At the time it was reviewed some of those sections were closer to the top of the article, though they have since been moved down (not by me).Dave (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm going to do that right now. Maybe sometime later. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
History
Earlier construction

The word short is repeated a lot in this section, as well as the "later construction" section just below. The phrase "short segment" is used in two consecutive sentences, either change one or add "another" to the second, and consider eliminating more instances to avoid repetition of the word.

Fixed in both sections. Since nearly all of these are in the three big cities, I think it's fair to say that most people can figure out these segments were "short". Bneu2013 (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Controversies

"The court found that Volpe had violated clauses of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 which prohibit the approval of federal funding for highway projects with feasible alternative routes" This needs explanation, to me it feels like the sentence is missing a word. Virtually all highway surveying studies list multiple alternatives, so there has to be something more to the prohibition.

There were alternative routes considered, but the city and state preferred the park route, most likely because it was cheaper. Working on fixing. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I see what I missed now. The legislation prevents the approval of funding for highway projects through public parks unless feasible alternative routes do not exist. Looks like I screwed up when I wrote this in the first place. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Major projects and expansions (I'd shorten the section title to expansion, major projects is kinda obvious)
I'm hesitant to change this because not all projects listed here would be considered "expansions". For example, the tailgating sensors. Most of the projects listed are generic widening projects which I'm pretty sure most people understand "expansions" to refer to. While other projects, such as the reconstruction of Malfunction Junction and the I-240 interchanges did add capacity, I still think it's important to distinguish these from generic widening projects. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with hazardously sharp curves". That's clunky. I'd just delete, the next phrase "with some of the highest crash rates in the state" gets the point across by itself.
    • Done.
Sourcing Spotchecks
  • "Several miles later, the highway enters Haywood County near the site of Ford Motor Company's future Blue Oval City manufacturing facility" -> sourced to [2]. Pass. However, again I'd remove phrases like "several miles later". IMHO it doesn't add much and again "several miles" means something different to a resident of rural Alaska as it does urban France.
Done.
  • "Traversing through a mix of additional level farmland and swamplands, I-40 enters Jackson some distance later and crosses the South Fork of the Forked Deer River." sourced to two USGS maps. The maps explicitly show swampland (legend uses the words wetlands, but that's not a big deal to me) The USGS maps do not explicitly label farmland in the area, though checking Google Maps satellite view does make it pretty obvious there is farmland along this portion of the freeway corridor. Again I personally don't have a problem with using Google satellite image maps in that way, however, there is an open RFC on the subject and there doesn't appear to be consensus on weather this is ok or not. As a backup, I found this site [3] you might want to use in case the RFC fails.
This site doesn't appear to contain maps of farmland in the county, but I'll take a closer look. I'll probably end up replacing with a zoning map of Madison County, but that will probably have to wait until the weekend. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update - replaced with a property search map, which lists the usage for each property. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crosscountryroads.com appears to be a personal website. Given there is an additional source of a newspaper article for this same sentence, I'd suggest to just delete this. To cite to a personal website on a FA class article you first have to establish the author is an expert. Not worth the trouble if you already have another source. I've done this once or twice before, but years ago, you'd probably want to ask one of the FAC co-ordinaters for the procedure if you really want to try to qualify that website.
    • Removed. Although I think it could pass as reliable. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • claim of highway being once called the Broadway of America - cited to a newspaper article- Johnson City Chronicle- Passed. Incidentally this road is mentioned in the article Auto trail, consider wikilinking.
    • Done.
  • "Most of these empty lots have since been built over." - Sourced to a Commercial Appeal article. Passed, but need to replace "most" with something like "some", article does not mention most.
    • Actually, many more have been built over since this article to the point that very little of this scar still exists. Will add an up-to-date source. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - replaced with "some". Bneu2013 (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
  • Just getting started more to come later. Dave (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moabdave: - I believe I've responded to and/or addressed all of your remaining comments so far. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for the glacial pace of this review. I am working on it today and will have more shortly. In the interim I stand by my recommendation above to have a good copyeditor review this article, we have some good volunteer copy-editors on Wikipedia. If you don't know of any, you can ask at WP:GOCE, also there are a few who hang out on the Discord server (that's where I go to beg for one ;) ). Dave (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Submitted a GOCE request. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked, GoCE Requests were averaging over three months to be completed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I will leave some feedback shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. This is a long article, so I'll leave a few comments now and come back to this later.
Lead:
  • "At a length of 455.28 miles (732.70 km), the Tennessee segment of I-40 is the longest of the eight states on the route, and the longest Interstate Highway in Tennessee" - The first part of this reads slightly awkwardly, since you can just say "At 455.28 miles (732.70 km)". But it would be quite strange to say "The Tennessee segment of I-40, at a length of 455.28 miles (732.70 km), is the longest..."
  • Done, also did some minor rephrasing to the sentence. Please let me know if you have any issues with it. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Initially constructed in segments, most of I-40 in Tennessee was completed by the latter 1960s." - This contains a dangling modifier. I recommend "Initially constructed in segments, I-40 in Tennessee was mostly completed by the latter 1960s."
  • Done.
  • "is culturally significant in that it passes through a region that was instrumental in the development of American popular music." - I think you can drop "is culturally significant in that it", as the rest of its sentence speaks for itself.
  • Done.
  • "that culminated in this case; this resulted in the state abandoning the alignment through the park in favor of relocating the Interstate onto a section of what was originally part of I-240" - This is also a bit awkwardly phrased. Did the case, or the activism, result in the state abandoning the route through the park? Also, this could probably be shortened to something like "... this resulted in the state abandoning the original alignment and relocating the Interstate onto a section of what was originally part of I-240" to make the lead more concise.
  • Both the case and the activism resulted in the relocation, although not immediately. I have made the recommended change. If you still have any issues, please let me know. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Route description:
  • As I mentioned on this article's talk page, the route description is pretty long, even considering the highway's importance. There are a lot of minor junctions, bridges, and landscape features that are mentioned here. Even if someone is only reading about a specific section of I-40, that is a lot of text for them to read. Before I review this section further, I recommend removing some of the more minor details.
  • Removed additional minor details, mostly length descriptions that were probably unnecessary, a couple of interchanges, and trimmed down some of the landscape descriptions. With the exception of one or two urban thoroughfares, all of the junctions mentioned by name are with either NHS routes or state routes that are part of the Federal-Aid Primary Highway System, so there are no "minor" routes listed. Most of the bridges mentioned are river crossings (and there are a lot of rivers in Tennessee); the only others are a set of flyovers at an interchange in Memphis, a deck arch bridge in Nashville that is somewhat of a local landmark, and a railyard/parking lot crossing in Knoxville. Overall, the content-per-mile in the route description is on par with that of other featured articles, such as Interstate 82 and Kansas Turnpike, two articles I replied on as models for this one. That being said, I-40 in Tennessee probably has a higher rate of interchanges per mile with primary highways than many other Interstates, especially those in western states. The varying topography of Tennessee definitely makes many landscape features worth mentioning, however, especially those in the mountains. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense. I still think that the RD is pretty long, but since the highway itself is also pretty long, your explanation is reasonable. I'll look at the prose for this section over the weekend. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse the interruption. If I can chime in, I had similar thoughts as I was reading the route description. As a specific example, the last 4 sentences of the 1st paragraph in the Memphis section of the route description are a turn-by-turn description of how I-40 avoids the downtown by arcing to the north. I'm torn on this. If this were me I'd just have a single sentence saying something to the effect of, "the current route is a northern detour around downtown due to a freeway revolt canceling the original planned route through town", and call it good. However, that's a stylistic difference. Furthermore, there certainly have been other articles that have passed FA with this detailed "turn-by-turn" style of description. So I accept that is my opinion and I won't oppose over a stylistic difference of opinion on what makes a better description. However, to add my voice to what Epicgenius said, my preference is for brevity where possible.Dave (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only issue I really have with that is the reason for this alignment is extensively covered in the history section and alluded to in the lead. Also, this could give the incorrect impression that this alignment was entirely original, whereas it was a rerouting onto the former alignment of I-240. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - I have responded to all of your comments so far. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to review the "History" section first, since, in light of Dave's comment, I still think we can tighten up the RD somewhat. To be honest, for many people, reading the route description will feel a bit like driving on I-40 in Tennessee - people might find it too long. The length of this article might contribute to the fact that they only read the section about their part of Tennessee, rather than the other way around.
Music Highway:
  • This entire paragraph only has one primary source, the legislation itself. Are there no secondary sources:
  • "the areas in between played in the development of American popular music." - This reads strangely. I suggest rewording this so it's more clear that "the area in between" and "played in the development" are separate topics, e.g. "The designation commemorates the significant roles that Memphis and Nashville, as well as the areas in between, played in the development of American popular music."
  • Done.
Predecessor highways:
  • Should "Native-American" be hyphenated in "Native-American trails"?
  • There's been a big debate about this amongst journalists, but most guides, such as the AP stylebook, are moving away from this convention.

Bneu2013 (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update - removed hyphen. It was actually someone else who incorrectly added that, and I missed it. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the creation of the Southwest Territory, the territorial legislature authorized a wagon trail to be constructed between Knoxville and Nashville on July 10, 1795." - Since the trail was not constructed on July 10, 1795, you may want to mention the date earlier on, e.g. "After the creation of the Southwest Territory, the territorial legislature, on July 10, 1795, authorized a wagon trail to be constructed between Knoxville and Nashville."
  • Done.
  • I think there are places where the text can be condensed a bit. Specific examples:
    • "a veteran of the American Revolutionary War." → "an American Revolutionary War veteran"
      • Done.
    • "It was constructed out of portions of Tollunteeskee's Trail, Avery's Trace, and the Emery Road, and passed through the cities of Kingston, Carthage, and Gallatin. It was built from 1799 and 1801 at a cost of $1,000" → "Built from 1799 and 1801 at a cost of $1,000 (...) it was constructed out of portions of Tollunteeskee's Trail, Avery's Trace, and the Emery Road, and passed through the cities of Kingston, Carthage, and Gallatin."
      • Done.
    • "After the formation of the Tennessee Department of Highways, the predecessor agency to TDOT," → "After the formation of TDOT predecessor Tennessee Department of Highways"
      • Done, although I didn't have an issue with the previous wording. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, what is the Emery Road? You mean the Walton Road?
  • It was a section of the Walton Road built a few years before. Will add something about this promptly.

Bneu2013 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update - the Emery Road was a trail cleared a few years prior in an attempt to connect Knoxville to Nashville. Although I haven't been able to confirm, I don't think it was an entirely new construction; it appears to have been a link from Knoxville to Native American trails on the plateau. multiple sources describe Avery's Trace as the first road across the plateau and between Knoxville and Nashville. That being said, I've added a small descriptor. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in an effort to encourage the state to improve the network of roads that ran between Memphis and Bristol." - Was this effort successful? If so, you can probably drop "in an effort".
  • "This highway became recognized" - by whom? The source indicates that it was characterized in a Johnson City Chronicle headline as such.
Planning:
  • I think you can remove the link to the disambiguation page "Malfunction Junction".
  • Done.
  • "which was approved by the Bureau of Public Roads, predecessor to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on April 12, 1956" - This is missing a comma after (FHWA). Alternatively, you can rearrange this to "which was approved by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) predecessor Bureau of Public Roads on April 12, 1956"
    • Fixed.
  • "was part of 1,047.6 miles (1,685.9 km)" - I'd say "was among" instead of "was part of".
    • Done.
  • "I-40 in Tennessee was initially planned as the longest segment of Interstate Highway within a single state" - I'd reword this as "I-40 in Tennessee was initially the longest segment of Interstate Highway planned within a single state", as I-75 was also planned as the longest intrastate segment of Interstate Highway, just not until later.
    • Done.
More to come, hopefully soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Epicgenius: - responded to all of your comments so far. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry again for the delay. I will leave some more comments about the history soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Guerillero[edit]

  • Oppose due to the use of Google Maps when USGS QQs are available in light of the unclosed Maps RfC that shows significant community oposition to the use of dynamic webmaps --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 10:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @In actu: - So does this mean you would oppose every other current highway FA that uses Google Maps? So far the RFC hasn't shown a consensus that Google Maps is entirely unreliable, and it has been upheld multiple times at RFC. There seems to be concerns about using Google Maps to cite certain specific features, and this article does not rely on Google Maps for this. Bneu2013 (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant community opposition to it being a reliable makes it almost certain that it is not a "high-quality reliable source" under any reasonable definition. This is especially true for the United States where state, local, and federal sources publish comprehensive maps on a regular basis. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would wait for that RFC to close before citing it. As an example why, at least one, maybe two, of the more prolific oppose votes at that RFC are opposing but with the opposite logic. They are claiming, you can't trust government maps for a government project, because it's not independent. They are insisting for government projects independent means the map must be commercial. And there's a lot of follow on "support per x" votes. Should that person's POV prevail when the RFC is closed, you have given the wrong advice here.
    I also have been known to raise concerns over misuse of Google maps in GAC/FAC/etc. However, I haven't gotten that far just yet. I would rather see what is sourced to Google Maps (and I'll get there, working on it) before raising opposition. Dave (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guerillero: - If you have any issue with anything specific that is cited to Google Maps, please list it. Otherwise, it would make sense to review lots of other highway FAs, some of which rely on Google Maps more strongly than this one. Also note that as a condition of the previous nomination, I added a lot more sources for terrain descriptions to corroborate what was originally almost exclusively cited to Google Maps. Now, it is used primarily for citing interchanges and distances. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My oppose on sourcing grounds stands and will be weighed by the coords when they close. I will reevaluate iff you decide to replace Google Maps with a "high-quality reliable source". As for other articles, I have consistent worked to make sure that all FAs meet the sourcing requirements found in 1c. I would not have a problem with !voting to delist at FAR based on the use of Google Maps. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I recently posted something related to this at the RfC, but I will provide a shortened version here. The gist of it is, if Google Maps is inappropriate to use to cite, for example, the numbering of interchanges or distance between interchanges, something millions of motorists use it everyday for navigation, then why do we even have maps at all? If you think this is an inappropriate usage of Google Maps, then I suggest you nominate all of the existing highway FAs that use it in the same matter as this article for review. Although I don't know of all of them, I do know right of the top of my head that all of the Michigan Interstate FAs rely on Google Maps for the RD even more than this one. But I'm not trying to start a discussion about that here. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a rather ridiculous statement. You won't indicate where you feel a particular source is used unreliably, based on an undecided "consensus" from an unclosed RfC, that the use of that source is unreliable, period. WP:DEPS is where such claims of invalidity should refer. Hopefully any closing coord would ignore votes not based in policy whatsoever, even though Bneu has since updated them. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Guerillero:, how do you propose that the distances in the table be measured then? I don't like using Google Maps for that either, but when Tennessee doesn't publish the mileage data, there's not many alternatives. --Rschen7754 00:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will point out that [4] does appear to have the data needed, however some members of the community oppose any dynamic map application. --Rschen7754 01:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      After looking taking a look, this is a far superior source to Google Maps. If this isn't acceptable, however, then I don't guess anything is. That being said, I will be replacing Google Maps with this in the exit list, and possible elsewhere if appropriate. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Update - I am currently in the process of switching over to the USDOT source for the exit list. It will probably take me at least another hour or two. This source actually gives the mileages to the thousandths place, which I personally think is TMI for encyclopedic articles. If someone disagrees, please let me know. I haven't seen whether or not there is a consensus on this. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know whether there is a recorded consensus, but you should use the same number of decimal places as the source. VC 00:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Of the Department's of Transportation that publish milage logs that I'm familiar with, all publish lengths to either 0.01 or 0.001 miles. I usually stick to the resolution provided by the DOT. An exception is where I have to use multiple sources with differing resolutions. In that case I've done both, I've had differing resolutions in the table and have rounded figures for consistency. Also I haven't forgotten about this review. I'll work more on it probably tomorrow.Dave (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Update - I've about got the new mileage figures cited. But the FHWA and BTS appear to disagree on the length of I-40 in Tennessee, with the latter claiming it is about 0.6 mi shorter. This could, of course, be due to methodology (the BTS uses the eastbound lanes to measure the length; I do not know how the FHWA does it). Even though this FHWA table seems to imply that it is almost 1.5 miles shorter than what they claim elsewhere, although this might be neglecting the I-40/24 concurrency length. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to let you all know, I will am working on replacing Google Maps with superior quality sources, but this will have to wait until the weekend. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Guerillero: - I have replaced all usages of Google Maps with much better quality sources. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Struck due to the update --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than 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) 20:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I must object. This is a long article and takes time to thoroughly review. There have been plenty of other FAs that have had reviews take longer than this. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having been open for more than four weeks this nomination has only picked up one general support. As there seems little sign of a timely consensus to promote forming I am regretfully timing this out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:57, 26 May 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/archive2&oldid=1157115497"