Talk:High Five Interchange/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Titoxd (talk · contribs) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The prose needs some work. More specific comments:

   • The High Five Interchange is the first five-level stack interchange to be built in the US city of Dallas, Texas. — why "to be built"? Simply "built" would be accurate, and avoids excessive wordiness introduced by the infinitive clause. Also, "US city" is not necessary, as "Dallas, Texas" introduces enough spatial context. Additionally, the first paragraphs of the both the lead and route description section are almost identical; I'd recommend expanding the paragraph in the description section to avoid needless repetition.

   Done

   • I would eliminate "(LBJ)" from the lede and the first paragraph of the route description section, as you never actually use the LBJ abbreviation anywhere else in the article.

   Done

   • The High Five is the first five-level stack interchange to be built in that city.[3]— by using "that", you imply that there is another city that the reader needs to keep in context (e.g. "this city"). I'd simply say "built in the city".

   Done

   • It replaces the antiquated three-level, modified cloverleaf interchange built in the 1960s that caused a severe bottleneck by narrowing US 75 to two lanes at the junction of the two highways. — while grammatically correct, this sentence is very close to being a run-on. Split it into smaller sentences. Also, since you mentioned that US 75 was narrowed down to 2 lanes, it would be helpful to know how many lanes it was originally narrowed from. (A 3→2 lane bottleneck is not as bad as a 4→2 lane bottleneck…)

   Partly done - fix run-on sentence; no information on how many lanes US 75 had before being narrowed to two lanes, so I removed the number

   I personally would prefer to have at least the "down to 2 lanes" part as opposed to having just "fewer". Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   • Further, the disconnection of its two frontage roads made local access difficult.[4] — more details, please. Did the frontage roads bridge over one another, did one terminate on the other, or something else? "Disconnection" is too vague to the lay reader.

   ??? - its not explained further anywhere so I interpreted it to what I gathered it meant. Does that work?

   I guess it works for me. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   • The interchange is as high as a 12-story building.[1] It includes 37 bridges spread across five levels (the "High Five"), 710 support tiers, and 60 miles of additional highway. — these two sentences can be easily combined. ("…as a 12-story building,[1] and includes…") Also, why is the interchange so tall? Is it a natural result of the 5-level configuration, or is each level extra tall when compared to other similar interchanges?

   Partly done plus Explanation - It was so tall because that was the construction design - From Popular Mechanics: "As Mahmassani points out, building wider roads is just not feasible in most cities. The solution for Dallas? Go vertical. Certain points of the High Five are as tall as a 12-story building, and about 500,000 commuters pass through it daily. The project required 37 permanent bridges and six temporary bridges to be built. Additionally, 300,000 square feet of retaining wall and 74,000 square feet of drainage pipe run along the interchange. In 2006, the American Public Works Association selected the interchange as one of its "Public Works Projects of the Year."

   - since there are other five-level stack interchanges in cities, Popular Mechanics would not have selected this one emphasizing its height if equal height were a natural result of the 5-level structure, I concluded (perhaps wrongly).

   • along with the visually appealing colorful finishing (waterborne acrylic paint formulation specified by TxDOT[11]), — "visually appealing finish", plus I'm not entirely sure that we need to know that the paint is a special formula. Also, while I know what TxDOT means, do spell out the name of the agency the first time you use it, per WP:MTAA.

   Done

   • and was located one of most intensely developed commercial zones in Dallas. — "located in one"

   Done

   • A goal was to build in design flexibility in anticipation of future needs for improvement.[11] — what does that even mean? It sounds like bureaucratese, to be honest.

   Removed

   • Zachry Construction Corporation submitted the lowest bid and was awarded the $261 million contract by TxDOT — when was the contract awarded?

   Not done - don't know when it was awarded.

   • The construction contract contained elements unique to such contracts.[5] — I don't understand the plural in "contracts" here. Was there more than one?

   Tried to explain in text - construction contracts for transportation projects don't contain some of the elements contained in this one. Changed wording in text, hopefully clearer.

   I think I know what you meant, and I rephrased it in the article to make it clearer. Did my edit introduce inaccuracies? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   • Construction began on January 2, 2002.[14] — this sentence seems out of place, as it is between two sentences describing stipulations in the contract. In particular, the last sentence of the section mentions this fact again.

   Removed

   • "lane rentals" by TxDOT for time they closed down traffic lanes, fees — use an em dash instead of a comma, or modify the sentence so that you don't have a dangling clause at the end of the sentence.

   Done

   • To save time and money, innovative constructions were used. — what are "innovative constructions"? You mean "innovative methods of construction" or something similar

   Done

   • cast-in-place segmental concrete was substituted in the plans. — is there an article you can link in here?

   No. I read all over Wikipedia and the articles are not very good and don't explain anything clearly. I think "cast-in-place" means pouring the concrete into forms where they will be located (like pouring a sidewalk). This was the original plan but the contractor changed to precast. It's not explained how it enhanced the construction cost or time line.

   • Is there a reason to have a blockquote in the article, as opposed to simply paraphrasing the amount of raw materials used?

   Done - (was just to avoid copyvio)

   • In 2006, the American Public Works Association named the High Five "Public Works Project of the Year".[3] — Add more details here. Why was the project named so?

   Can you suggest an appropriate paraphrase of why it was given the award?

   (This is the reason given by the American Public Works Association) As tall as a 12-story building, the massive concrete structure is relieving a bottleneck that has strangled city traffic for years. The Interchange consists of just under 60 lane miles of new roadway (comparable to the width of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex), stretching 3.4 miles east and west and 2.4 miles north and south (equivalent to about 100 New York City blocks). At the intersection of Interstate 635 (LBJ Freeway) and U.S. 75 (North Central Expressway), the interchange is designed to improve traffic flow, driving conditions and safety for more than 500,000 commuters each day. It was completed 13 months ahead of its original 60-month construction schedule and replaces an outdated three-level modified partial cloverleaf interchange built in the 1960s. Through four years of construction, the project required more than 2.2 million cubic yards of earthwork, 350,000 cubic yards of concrete produced onsite, 300,000 square feet of retaining walls and 74,000 linear feet of drainage pipe. The effort also included construction of 37 permanent bridges and six temporary bridges, encompassing 2.3 million square feet of bridge deck.

   I will interpret these reasons this and you can tell me what you think. Suggestions accepted!

MathewTownsend (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   You may want to rename some of the sections to match Wikipedia:USRD/STDS#Article layout.

   Reply - can you give me some suggestions? I read the linked section but I don't understand what applies to this article.

   In particular, rename the "construction" section to "history". "Route description" would apply if this were a road, but since it is not really a route as much as it is just a route segment, "description" works here.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Is source 15 reliable? Also, the formatting of citations is sub-par. That is not part of WP:WIAGA, but is something that needs to be addressed for the article to be assessed A-Class or higher, IMO.

   Reply - Removed source 15 - wasn't necessary anyway. Regarding formatting of citations, I used the cite templates. What should I do to improve the formating?

   • All citations need publication dates and authorship information, if available.
   • Citation 3 needs author and publisher information.
   • Citation 7 is essentially part the online companion to a textbook, so it would better to cite this one using {{cite book}}
   • Citation 11 should link and capitalize Sherwin-Williams. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   Done

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   See the comments in the prose section for areas where expansion or clarification are desirable.

   Done

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The caption for the second image needs to be expanded. Say that it is an aerial view, mention which road goes over what, or anything, but the current caption is mostly useless.

   Sort of done - The text says US 75 is on the bottom and I-635 is on the third level (though what the third level is isn't very clear from image.) Should I write a long caption giving the five levels and their contents, as is in the text?

   Nah, the current one works. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article still needs some work to meet GA status, but there are no major flaws that would take major work to fix. Thus, I'm putting the article on hold. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing the article. I will work on the article tomorrow. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have tried to take care of your concerns? Is this satisfactory, and are there other concerns? MathewTownsend (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • See the replies above. Getting there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Everything done, I believe. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  All right. I'm passing it. Good job. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)