Wikipedia:Peer review/Interstate 40 in Tennessee/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interstate 40 in Tennessee[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get it to featured article status, but this would be my first FA, and I would like for a more experienced editor in this area to take a thorough look at it to suggest improvements as well as address questions I have about possible changes/additions. I got this article to GA status back in February, and since then have made a number of improvements, mostly to the prose. I have also added some tidbits of additional information and a few additional images. I don't think it is far away from reaching FA status, but with me not having much experience with that process, do not believe it would be wise to nominate without a peer review.

I believe the most important area that should be analyzed is the grammar and choice of words/phrases, as well as other minor details such as whether or not there are still any typographical errors or if the placement of links is appropriate. In addition to the above, there will be other possible changes that I will bring up as the review progresses; however, I feel it would be premature to bring them up before the review has begun.

Thanks, Bneu2013 (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013: It has been over a month this has been posted, and no one has commented yet. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I suggest posting a short message on the talk pages of the Wikiprojects that are attached to this article. I also suggest that you shorten the message above, as editors are unlikely to read all of that and it might prevent editors from wanting to review your article. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: - Yes I am. I have gone ahead and removed the section about possible objections that might come up. WP:USRD is probably the only WikiProject that would take notice to this, but I will post a notification at WP:TN as well. Thanks. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I think this review has addressed most of the remaining post-GA issues, and that it is therefore time to close it. My only big remaining concern is that I would like to get updated photos of the Cumberland Plateau descent and Mt. Cammerer. Another photo on top of the Cumberland Plateau would be nice, too. However, it will likely be some time before I will be traveling along any of those stretches, so it will have to wait. I am also wondering if I should include an honorary designations section, but I don't want the article to get too long. Other than that, I am satisfied by the overall outcome of this review, and believe I am ready to nominate this article as a featured article candidate. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Fredddie[edit]

Staking a claim in case someone else decides to do the same. –Fredddie™ 02:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox
  1. Since the infobox should be a summary of the article, could the two notes in the history parameter be shortened to just the year?
    I think so, but I've noticed that both forms are commonly used. I don't suppose that there is any guideline on this, is there?
    I was just hoping to prevent a line break. If it does it for me, it likely does it for someone else, too. –Fredddie™ 05:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  1. I-40 traverses the entirety of the state... I'd get rid of the entirety here. I know what you're trying to say, but in reality it's only a strip of right-of-way.
     Done
  2. My gut says "Tennessee's Main Street" needs a citation. Same with the Great Smoky Mountains NP statistic.
    I believe this came from the Harry Moore book, but I don't have access to the entire book right now through Google Books. If I can't borrow a copy in the next few days, then I can probably find another source.
    I did a cursory Googling and it seems Tennessee has a Main Street revitalization program which clogs up the search results to a degree. –Fredddie™ 06:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - I wasn't able to find this in the Moore book or any other sources, and so I've removed it. It would be nice to include if there were a source, but certainly not required. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The two sentences about the physiography are great, but the second sentence says the same thing but without labels. Could you combine the two somehow to eliminate that repetition?
    I could, but it might create a run-on sentence. The second sentence might be something to consider for a route description intro paragraph. Will take a look at this when I get there.
  4. most of I-40 in Tennessee was complete by... → most of I-40 in Tennessee was completed by...
     Done
  5. Actually that whole sentence should be split in two. If you do, the second half (starting at "with the stretch...") is a fragment.
     Done
  6. The last planned section was completed in 1975, and much of the route has been widened and reconstructed since then. → The last planned section was completed in 1975; much of the route has been widened and reconstructed since then.
     Done
Route description
  1. I like to write a section lead before any section subheaders. This is also a good place for AADT information and named designations.
     Done - I have added a section lead. Please let me know what you think about it and if it should be modified. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The RD should be rewritten to not rely on lengths. I did a search for "about {{convert" and got 57 hits. And another for ") later" and got 40 hits. Yes there is quite a bit of overlap there, but that's just too much reliance on lengths.
    • Here's an example from the Knoxville section: I-40 then curves due north, and about 1⁄2 mile (0.80 km) later, northeast again before coming to an interchange with a connector to US 441.
    • I-40 then curves due north, and then northeast again before coming to an interchange with a connector to US 441.
    • Do you think the meaning of the sentence changed without the length? I don't.
     Doing... - this will take some time, but I have gone ahead and fixed the example you gave. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - I've gotten rid of most of the precise mileage figures, and replaced them with more generic descriptors. Most of the ones I left describe geographic features, such as lengths of grades or distances between river crossings, as opposed to distances between interchanges. Please let me know if you think this is still too repetitive. I may also have to make some similar modifications in the history section. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will get look at the article again in the next day or so. –Fredddie™ 05:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is where my review is going to end for now because that's a big one. –Fredddie™ 03:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fredddie: - sorry I have been slow to respond, but are you still planning on completing your review? Bneu2013 (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Things got hectic for a little bit there and my Wikipedia time was relaxation time, not reviewing time. I'll get it this week. –Fredddie™ 04:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restarting

Me doing this is in no way related to you reviewing my article at GAN. [narrator] It was. The RD is a lot better with regards to lengths. I think it allows you to be more creative in your writing rather keeping everything in the context of how far away the last thing was.

  1. Starting at the history section, again I would like to see a section lead.
     Doing... - In progress. Will take a look at other interstate FAs to get some ideas. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - After looking at other Interstate FAs, I honestly can't see any advantage to doing this. For example, all of the Michigan FAs have RD lead sections, but not history leads. I one article I looked at, Interstate 80 in Iowa, the lead section describes predecessor routes, which could easily be split into a subsection. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In the planning section, I wouldn't call the Magnolia Avenue Expressway the first completed segment of I-40 because it wasn't until 1956. I would mention that the Magnolia Avenue Expressway was included in the I-40 designation.
     Done - reworded to state that it was the first segment given the I-40 designation. Note that below, I refer to the first segments to begin construction and be completed under the interstate system to distinguish from this. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. On a similar note to the lengths above, it's great that you have exact dates for everything. For that I'm kind of jealous. I'd like to see some variation on how dates are used. (emphasis mine)
    The 31-mile (50 km) stretch between SR 59 near Braden and US 70 east of Brownsville was dedicated and opened by Governor Clement on December 17, 1963.[55] On December 21, 1963, two sections, the 9-mile (14 km) segment between SR 46 in Dickson and SR 96 in Williamson County, and the 15-mile (24 km) segment between SR 53 in Gordonsville and SR 56 near Silver Point were opened.[56][57]
    The 31-mile (50 km) stretch between SR 59 near Braden and US 70 east of Brownsville was dedicated and opened by Governor Clement on December 17, 1963.[55] Four days later, two sections, the 9-mile (14 km) segment between SR 46 in Dickson and SR 96 in Williamson County, and the 15-mile (24 km) segment between SR 53 in Gordonsville and SR 56 near Silver Point were opened.[56][57]
    See how the same information is conveyed but without the repetition? The same thing happens later in the same paragraph. You could replace "On December 14, 1964, ..." with "Later in the month, ...".
     Done - It took me more than four years to find all of those dates, but I will point out that the state media seems to have provided disproportionate coverage to I-40 when the interstates were first being built, probably because it is the most important highway in the state by a large margin. I haven't been so lucky with other interstate highways. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I am guilty of this, but check the passive voice in the history section. I see a lot of "was opened" and "was dedicated". In the example I just gave you with the dates, it could be reworded further:
    Governor Clement opened and dedicated the 31-mile (50 km) stretch between SR 59 near Braden and US 70 east of Brownsville on December 17, 1963.[55] Four days later, two more sections opened: the 9-mile (14 km) segment between SR 46 in Dickson and SR 96 in Williamson County and the 15-mile (24 km) segment between SR 53 in Gordonsville and SR 56 near Silver Point.[56][57]
     Done - In addition to the example above, I have made other similar changes. For contiguous segments that were opened consecutively, I mentioned this. For example, in the later construction paragraph, I reworded one pair of sentences to read The 12-mile (19 km) long segment between US 127 in Crossville and US 70 in Crab Orchard was opened on September 12, 1968.[81] The adjacent section extending to SR 299 near the eastern escarpment of the Cumberland Plateau followed on September 26, 1969.[82]. I don't know if "adjacent" is the best word to describe contiguous sections, however. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. On December 20, 1965, four segments were declared complete. By who?
     Fixed - the state highway department. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Geological problems? That sounds interesting. What problems did they have during construction? I realize there's a section below, but maybe it could be merged into the construction paragraphs.
    Are you referring to the Pigeon River Gorge or the eastern Cumblerland Plateau section? The problems during construction of the latter are summarized in the geological difficulties section. From what I've been able to find, the only real problems with construction of the Pigeon River Gorge section were simply the sheer amount of rock and earth that had to be moved. Most of the geological problems on this section have occurred since the stretch was opened. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to stop here only because it's going on 3:00am and I'd like to go to bed. Hopefully it doesn't take another month for me to continue. –Fredddie™ 09:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was talking specifically about sentence about Walden Ridge. That's kind of why I suggested merging in the Geological difficulties sections into the construction section. It seems like a good entry point to talk about the geology rather than coming back to it later. Also the article says "descent up Walden Ridge". –Fredddie™ 02:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In my own work, found a lot about how inflation in the early 1970s affected projects. Was there anything like that for I-40?
    I haven't been able to find much information about inflation delaying or seriously complicating any of I-40, but it certainly increased costs. For example, the Hernando de Soto bridge cost about half as much as the roughly 200-mile stretch between Nashville and Memphis completed only seven years before, unadjusted for inflation. And I do remember that the bridge's final cost was approximately five times more than the original estimate, but I believe that was from many years before construction actually began. The News-Sentinel article from 1972 mentions inflation as a justification for why expanding the last stretch of I-40 to six lanes while still under construction was expected to be a cost saver. I do know that the 1973 energy crisis delayed the completion of the last stretches of I-75 and I-81 in Tennessee that were opened on the same day, but I haven't found anything about whether or not it affected this particular section (the article mentions that it was expected to be open by late 1974, which partially proved true, although final work was not complete for another nine months. The I-75 and I-81 stretches missed their opening dates by more than a year). Bneu2013 (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maybe add {{Further|Freeway revolt}} under the Controversies heading.
     Done - added hatnote to Highway revolts in the United States. Should I use Highway revolt instead? Bneu2013 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Either is fine. –Fredddie™ 03:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The racial discrimination paragraph is good. We don't talk about this enough in our articles.
  10. The first project, which began in January 2001 and was completed in October 2003, constructed a new two-lane flyover ramp from I-40 westbound to I-240 westbound, replacing a single-lane loop ramp, and widened the approach of I-240 south of the interchange.[118][119] I would break this into two sentences.
  11. The sentence about the HOV lanes opening in Memphis should have a wikilink. It's a good navigational opportunity.
     Done
  12. What kinds of redesign complications were there?
    This article (1, 2) mentions additional auxiliary lanes. It says the FHWA got involved and required TDOT to undertake additional studies. However, I will point out that TDOT is absolutely notorious for repeatedly delaying projects like this. While all states have their fair share of highway funding complications, I can't think of any state that I've ever been to that tops Tennessee. So the redesign and FHWA involvement is probably not the whole story. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. A parallel structure issue here (emphasis mine): This project consisted of converting the interchange into a directional T interchange and the demolition of several unused ramps and bridges...
    There are a couple ways you could fix it.
    This project converted the interchange into a directional T interchange and demolished several unused ramps and bridges...
    This project consisted of converting the interchange into a directional T interchange and demolishing several unused ramps and bridges...
     Fixed - Please let me know if you think the changes are adequate. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. It might not be a bad idea to double check the rest of the article.
  15. The paragraph that starts The short segment of I-40 between... has "between <date> and <date>" four times.
     Done - replaced some of them with "from" and one "linking". Please let me know if you think it is still too repetitive. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Actually, you use "between" a lot. ⌘ Cmd+F shows 122 instances of the word. For comparison, Interstate 70 in Colorado, which is a FA of approximately the same length, only has twelve instances of "between". It's not wrong to say stuff happened between two dates or two places, just vary the wording.
     Doing... - In progress. Not to get off topic, but I-70 in Colorado was promoted to FA more than a decade ago, and what constitutes meeting the FA criteria is certainly bound to change with time. For example, just ten years ago, there is no way I would have been able to find all of the information that this article contains, especially the specific dates. I actually started a discussion about I-70 about a year ago. Just as with I-40, I'm sure there is a lot of information about the Colorado stretch of I-70 available on the internet now that was not available when it was promoted to FA. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    No that's valid. I was just trying to find a decent article that was about the same length. I'm certainly a better researcher and writer than I was when I wrote my first FA. See US 34 which was promoted last year to US 30 which was promoted in 2010. US 34 is worlds better. Part of that is going through the ACR and FAC processes. I've suggested to someone privately that we should get this article through GAN and into ACR so we can get project eyes on it and prepare it for FAC. It's almost there. –Fredddie™ 05:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Fixed - Juxtaposed with words like, "from", "connecting", "linking", "joining", etc. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Where you talk about widening from six to eight lanes, it might not hurt to switch up the wording to "from three to four lanes in each direction".
     Done
    Update - after observing other highway GAs and FAs, I have noticed that the original terminology is very common, and in order to reduce the length, have reverted back to the original. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I would probably shorten the comically long wikilink describing the tanker disaster
     Done - shorten to include only the word "overturned". Do you think that's too short? Bneu2013 (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exit list
  1. How did you get 0.01 precision from Google Maps?
    Someone else did that. However, I checked the distances using the measure distance tool. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That will do it for my review. –Fredddie™ 01:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Doncram[edit]

Semi-seriously, why does this (and many other highway/canal/railway/river articles) not include coverage/mention of noteworthy historic sites, major public attractions, and similar that are in direct view? There are webpages out there, such as this one about attractions along the I-40, which lists 4 Tennessee ones, which cover things to do when travelling along a given route, allowing detours, but I would limit it to things that can be directly seen by an alert traveler from the route. IMHO it's worth mentioning the visibility of especially notable places, such as the Tennessee State Capitol and the Ryman Auditorium if they are in fact visible from the I-40. Those two are among the 31 National Historic Landmarks in Tennessee. Propinquity for this can be determined by the linked OSM map of their locations; direct visibility can be determined and documented by Google Streetview. What major stadiums, bridges, what else could and kinda should be noticed, by an informed traveler?

I happened to notice mention of this Peer review by the {{Unanswered peer reviews sidebar}} on my own Talk page, when tidying up for the new year. GL, and Happy New Year, anyhow. :) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Doncram: - the State Capitol and Ryman Auditorium are located about a mile or so from I-40, and are visible, but not very noticeably. In fact their visibility has probably been reduced in recent years by a skyscraper boom in Downtown Nashville. Nissan Stadium is also visible from a distance, but I-24 is much closer (and the primary means of access). The Sunsphere in Knoxville is very noticeable from I-40, but isn't located nearly as close as the Memphis Pyramid, which already is mentioned in the article. Another site that is located directly along I-40 in Nashville is Fort Negley, which might be worth mentioning, but isn't as well known as any of the other landmarks I mentioned. I think the reason we don't list all tourist attractions is because the list could get exhaustive if we included ones that are not located directly on the subject route, like you mentioned. None of the attractions in the article above are located directly on (i.e. visible from) I-40. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Doncram: - sorry I have been slow to respond, but are you still planning on finishing this review? Bneu2013 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Interstate_40_in_Tennessee/archive1&oldid=1142526631"