Talk:Interstate 80 in Iowa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Philosopher (talk · contribs) 17:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked for some thoughts at User talk:Philosopher#I-80 potential FAC and figured I might as well write a GA review. I'm new to this, so please bear with me.

Lead

• Looks generally good, except for that last sentence.

“ One traveler traveled from New York to Iowa through Canada specifically to avoid I-80. ”

A) It doesn't say what was wrong with I-80, B) it doesn't say whether it was before or after the 1980s rebuild, and C) why do we care about what one person did anyway? Especially in the lead, though it might well be removed from #Reconstruction as well.

I removed it from the lead and explained a little better that reconstruction occurred. I think we should keep in the Reconstruction section just because it adds a little color to the article. I could be swayed by a second or third opinion, though. –Fredddie™

Removed from lead, so  good. --03:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Completeness

• Was the construction of the '80s the last major renovation of the road? That is, have future renovations been only minor improvements or repairs?

I think I have forgotten to add the widening in the Des Moines area. I'll get that in the next day or so. –Fredddie™

C I'll check back, then. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking back through the notes I took while at the library, I didn't find anything specific about the Des Moines area. Just a lane closure here and there. So, barring another trip to the library, which wouldn't happen until Thursday at the earliest, I'm going to leave it as is. –Fredddie™ 23:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think lane closures here and there would really count, so ...  it's done. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• In the list of exits, it says that there are no major junctions in Madison County. I assume there are exists exits there, so how did you determine that they weren't major? Iowa City's Dubuque Street is listed, is that more major than any exit in Madison County? This is a WP:OR question, as well, I suppose.

This is handled by {{Jctco}}, which inserts a line in the table for when there are no interchanges. It's also used on state highway articles for when there are no major intersections. Since we can't possibly mention every gravel road intersected, we usually trim it down to state highways or other notable roads. In this case, there are no exits (major or otherwise) in Madison County, though one does exist on the Adair-Madison county line. I'll run it by the other USRD regulars to see if they think it's worthwhile to change what the template says for a lack of interchanges. –Fredddie™

 Okay. Thanks for the clarification - that wording is a bit confusing, but I suppose since it's templated it's more of an issue for the Project than for a GA review. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources

• The article states that the proposal for the Iowa Turnpike would have been the "first modern four-lane highway in the state". Is that covered in the Coverdale & Colpitts source (currently fn 33)? If so, a specific citation there (instead of waiting until the end of the paragraph) may be appropriate, since it's such a large claim.

I added it there, but if the entire paragraph can be cited to the same reference, shouldn't it go at the end? –Fredddie™

 Okay. The important thing was to check that it is covered in the source. Where to put the reference is probably just a matter of preference - don't move it if you don't think it's appropriate. My thought was that since it was a) a big claim and b) an offline source (not easy to see what it talks about), the clarification would be good, but it's up to you. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally (except for above comments)

1. Well-written, quite comprehensible. Y
2. Good citation to sources, though I didn't check the sources generally (not accessible to me). Y
3. Broad in coverage while avoiding minutae Y
4. No WP:NPOV issues. Y
5. No edit wars, etc. Y
6. Interesting and useful images, which illustrate the highway itself, the landscape, and several of the landmarks found along it. Y

Result

 On hold pending reply to issues in first sections of this review.

Only one issue left - widening of Des Moines, above. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Passed. All GA criteria have been met. Congratulations! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-GA thoughts

These thoughts either have nothing to do with to whether this is a GA or have too minimal an impact to interfere with its promotion, but I thought I should mention them for completeness, since I believe the author wants to nominate this for FA eventually.

• Should the rebuild of I-80 be added to the infobox's "history" section?
• Is there an article on the I-80 corridor? Should there be?

An interesting thought. This could be something that we add to Interstate 80. I would have liked to cite the corridor data to the Census, but I was having trouble finding it there. If I ever have more luck searching it, I could definitely add to the main I-80 article. –Fredddie™

• The article (esp. in #Route description) reads as though I-80 starts in the west and ends in the east. I realize that this is how the exits are numbered, but it feels somewhat unnatural to read it that way, given that the road goes in both directions.

It's common practice for USRD articles to follow the mileposts and go west to east or south to north. –Fredddie™

• The redlinked "shopping mall" looks weird, until you realize it's a piped link to Mall of the Bluffs. Can the redlink either be killed or unhidden? (either by replacing [[Mall of the Bluffs|shopping mall]] with shopping mall or with [[Mall of the Bluffs]])

I did that because 1) I didn't think the name of the mall was important to the article and 2) I believe this is proper use of a redlink to anticipate an article that will likely exist in the future. Now, if no article exists in a year or so, I'll gladly kill it. –Fredddie™

• #Services is inconsistent in usage of "rest areas" vs. "rest stops."

Hrm. In other forums, I've been asked to mix it up a little bit. –Fredddie™

Thanks for the review. It's very much appreciated. –Fredddie™ 01:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)