Talk:Gatlinburg Bypass

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gatlinburg Bypass/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 05:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll post a review for this shortly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Bneu2013, I've posted the review below. The main issues that need a closer look are whether the sources completely verify the information and whether there's post-1968 coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

Just a few notes on grammar, concision, and clarity:

• The road provides scenic overlooks – A little too promotional
  •  Fixed
• outside of the main boundaries of the park – The park hasn't been mentioned in the body yet, so it should be named here.
  •  Done
• It immediately crosses over – Is "immediately" necessary here? If it means something specific, a more precise description would be preferable. If it doesn't then it can be cut.
  • It is used to signify that the river crossing is right next to the southern terminus. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• before winding its way over – Informal
  •  Fixed
• the parkway begins to descend – "descends" is more concise than "begins to descend"
  • The descent is long and gradual, and protracted over the remaining length of the route. Using "descends" could imply that the descent is short. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    • That works then, though "gradually descends" is an option if you feel so inclined. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

      Reworded to "begins a long, gradual descent". Bneu2013 (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Preliminary planning for began in the mid-1950s – Did a word get dropped here?
  •  Fixed - yes.
• This agreement was subsequently finalized – "subsequently" can be removed without changing the meaning.
  •  Done

Verifiable with no original research

All sources appear to be reliable. A lot of older/primary sources, but that's not an issue for GA.

Maps are acceptable so long as they're only being used for basic facts without inference or interpretation. Is the description in "route description" based primarily on maps? There are a few lines that have interpretation that pushes the limit of what a map can state directly. As they're currently worded, I'd expect all of these to be supported by a textual source that states the facts explicitly:

• This intersection is at-grade, but resembles a trumpet interchange
  • At-grade intersections can be distinguished from interchanges using the map legend. Most maps use a small mark for interchanges. While interchange types probably aren't very well known outside of road enthusiast communities, we do commonly use maps to cite the types. There are several road GAs and FAs that do this. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    • At-grade is verifiable then. Is there anything that supports resembles a trumpet interchange, or is that your interpretation of what it looks like? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
      • It's largely my interpretation, or whoever wrote it (can't remember if I added that or not. Most road enthusiasts would probably agree. But I'll work on rewording it to something more verifiable. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
        • Update - I've removed the trumpet interchange description completely, but reworded to indicate that it includes a loop ramp and overpass, which are both characteristic of grade-separated interchanges. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Two overlooks along this section provide views of Gatlinburg below and Mount LeConte in the distance beyond
  • One of the photos actually shows this. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• (commonly known simply as "Parkway")
  • Lots of maps confirm this. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Spot checks:

• Miller (1963) – Good. Just to clarify for the infobox, a road is considered "in existence" as soon as it's signed off to begin construction?
  • There seems to be a disagreement about this, but for numbered highways, we usually use the date that the numbering was incorporated or approved by the proper agency (AASHTO, respective state highway department, etc.). Since this is an unusual case, it is best to use the date that the plans were finalized and approved.
• HAER Report – Good.
• Gatlinburg Bypass Route Bill Offered (1959) – Does this support anything in its second use? I don't see mentions of the Tennessee Department of Highways or the NPS in this source.
  • Only implicitly. These are the state and federal agencies that would be in charge of taking the actions described in the article. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Implicit support requires some level of original research to say that something is true. If the other source here covers everything, it might be better just to leave that one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
      •  Fixed - removed the second use. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• NPS (2021) – Where does the source say that Its main purpose is to allow tourists to bypass the congested business district of Gatlinburg in order to speed access to and from the national park?
  • It refers to the route as "providing an alternate route to the Park without going through downtown Gatlinburg". If you've ever been to the Smokies, you most certainly know how congested Gatlinburg is.
    • I'd get a plane ticket to confirm this, but then I would be conducting original research (and it would be expensive). This should be limited to what the source explicitly confirms. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
      • Actually, many of the older sources say that the road was needed for congestion relief in downtown Gatlinburg. But it would probably be better to find a modern source that says Gatlinburg is congested. I will work on this. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

        If we're citing that it's the reason it was first built, then a source saying that it was for congestion relief in the 1950 or 60s should work fine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

        •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

The article covers the route description. History leading up to the opening of the road is covered, but it cuts off as soon as the road opens in 1968. Surely it's received some sort of coverage in the last 55 years.

Unlike most highways, this remains essentially the same as when it was first constructed. I do remember the 2016 Great Smoky Mountains wildfires reaching the road, but I don't think it had any serious damage. I could probably get something in here about that, but it will probably have to wait until tomorrow. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Bneu2013, checking in. There's no rush, I just wanted to say that criteria 1 and 2 look like they're good to go, and this should be the only thing left. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: - Thanks. I'll try to get to this later today, but I'm very busy during the week these days. I did find a minor project that I think is worth adding, but I still need one more source to confirm when it was completed. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: - Update: I've added a few sentences about the aforementioned project, as well as the 2016 wildfire closure. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find an article that definitively said when this project was completed, just when it was projected to be completed after multiple delays. I suppose I could find a more precise date if I dug through the microfilm archives of the local papers, but that will have to wait. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! The exact date would be nice to have, but it's not terribly important, especially for GA's basic requirement of broad coverage. I'll check this off as a good article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

No ideas are favored or given undue weight.

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

Both images are licensed under Creative Commons and have captions for context.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.