Talk:Tennessee State Route 396

Requested move 30 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Tennessee State Route 396 → Saturn Parkway – "Saturn Parkway" appears on most signs along with TN 396, but newspapers mention the former much more than the latter. This could also apply for Google, where Saturn Parkway has far more results than TN 396. Saturn Parkway is a redirect right now, and if this move succeeds, Tennessee State Route 396 should become a redirect.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 12:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - We should use route number over the road name for the title, unless the route number is unsigned. That does not appear to be the case here. Dough4872 16:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ​Even if the name, not the number, is the common name? Is this based on any policy? It seems counter to WP:COMMONNAME. —  AjaxSmack  21:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
    • It is better to keep the article titles consistent across all numbered route articles. Route numbers are still common ways to refer to roads. It would be a mess to have some numbered routes at the title of the route while others are titled at the road name. Dough4872 23:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree in principle, but exceptions should be made when the common name is not the number. Wikipedia should be optimised for readers, not editors. —  AjaxSmack  01:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per CONSISTENCY. We don't call it Riverside Freeway, instead it is called California State Route 91. We usually have article names by the state route number, not memorial names, etc. CookieMonster755✉ 03:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tennessee State Route 396/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Floydian (talk · contribs) 02:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Review

So overall, there is not much I'm seeing here that's in need of improvements. It's pretty well-written and flows properly, the image checks out, there's a map and a KML. I have a few mostly minor thoughts:

• TDOT should have its first use (in the History) unabbreviated.
  •  Done
• "has a traditional diamond interchange with Kedron Road"

What is a "traditional" diamond IC?

• • Essentially the most common type of diamond interchange, but no need to be that descriptive here. Removed "traditional".
    • Good call, diamond interchanges are diamond interchanges.
• "Its primary purpose is to provide access between the General Motors (GM) automotive assembly plant and Interstate 65, as well as residential and commercial areas within Spring Hill."

Put refs [7] and/or [8] after this.

• •  Done
• "SR 396 is one of few non-interstate highways in the state with a 70-mile-per-hour (113 km/h) speed limit, which is allowed on all controlled-access highways in Tennessee.[3]"

I don't feel Google maps is a good reference for this. Are there any laws governing speed limits that could be used instead?

• •  Fixed - Google Maps is generally an acceptable source for route descriptions; however the speed limit regulations tidbit needed a separate citation. Provided a new citation to the state law. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Refs [3][2][5] at the end of RD, swap the order of [2] and [3].
  •  Done

I'll place this On hold for now. -- Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Floydian: - I've addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if there are any issues remaining. Thanks! Bneu2013 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Just missing putting what is now refs [3] and/or [4] after the sentence "Its primary purpose is to provide access between the General Motors (GM) automotive assembly plant and Interstate 65, as well as residential and commercial areas within Spring Hill." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  • @Floydian: - my bad, I thought I'd already done this. Instead I placed them after a similar sentence in the lead. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me now, my concerns are addressed so I am passing the article. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Thank you! Bneu2013 (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Tennessee State Route 396 was constructed to provide access to the sole manufacturing facility of Saturn Corporation? Source: Sherman, Joe (1994). In the Rings of Saturn. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 320. ISBN 0-19-507244-8 – via Internet Archive.
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Bneu2013 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC).

•  Reviewing... Onegreatjoke (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Bneu2013: Good article. Article is sourced, no QPQ is required, and the hook is interesting. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)