Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 40 in Tennessee/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 September 2023 [1].

Interstate 40 in Tennessee

edit
Nominator(s): Bneu2013 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second-longest freeway segment within a U.S. state east of the Mississippi River, and arguably the most important road in Tennessee by a long shot. This road is culturally significant in that it passes through one of the most important regions instrumental in the development of popular music (Hence its nickname "Music Highway"), and is also connected to a landmark United States Supreme Court case that has had implications on probably all highway construction projects since. This is my third, and hopefully last, attempt to get this to FA status. There seemed to be broad consensus during the last nomination that it was close, with one user willing to support pending a copyedit. This article received a peer review early this year, and since the last FAC nomination, has received a thorough GOCE copyedit. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:I-40-Nashville-1962.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Malfunction_junction_knoxville_1970s.jpg
  • File:TDOT_work_on_Hernando_de_Soto_bridge_fracture.jpg needs a different fair-use tag and a stronger rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This wasn't my image. I've improved the rationale, but I don't see what's wrong with the license. While "historic" may bring "old" to mind, this is still technically a "historic image" and doesn't really fall under any of the other fair-use categories. The gist of the rationale is that it would be near-impossible (and illegal at the time) for a civilian to obtain such a photo from this location. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, is this all done now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the first two images is currently the subject of a deletion discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:, Nikkimaria - the first image was deleted, and I have no plans at the moment to reupload it. The holder has not responded to my email. With regards to the image that is currently the subject of a deletion discussion, I recently discovered that it was first published in the state highway department's 1960-62 report. I hope that will solve this problem. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - that doesn't fit with the current tagging so that will need to be swapped out. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - are you saying the licensing or deletion tag needs to be changed? Bneu2013 (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - Done. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine. Just need to wait for the deletion request to be sorted then. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - looks like the issue with this image has been resolved now. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

edit

Comments from MyCatIsAChonk

edit
  • Landscapes on the route vary from flat, level plains and swamplands in the west, to irregular rolling hills... - cut that comma right after west
    • Done.
  • Is there a particular reason for the refs in the lead? They look unnecessary upon first glance.
    • All of these citations are for statements that are only explicitly in the lead (total length, longest in Tennessee, and terrain overview). While similar statements are found throughout the article that the reader can imply, it's best that we at least provide citations here so as not to be accused of OR. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially constructed in segments, I-40 in Tennessee was mostly complete by the late 1960s. - amend the first clause with the construction start date
  • First time under Route description, wl Tennessee and North Carolina
    • Done.
  • Some distance beyond this point, it turns north... - rather vague; if an exact distance is unknown, I'd suggest replacing it with just "Beyond this point, it..."
  • Some distance east of Lebanon... - same issue with "Some distance"
    • Fixed - see above.
  • Near the top, the Interstate reaches an elevation of 1,000 feet (300 m) for the first time in Tennessee, near Silver Point. - near is used twice in this sentence- mix things up a bit
    • Done.
  • The highway hugs the slopes of the plateau's Walden Ridge escarpment for several miles, containing what geologist Harry Moore called... - false title
    • Fixed.
  • Planners intended the highways to be integrated into the proposed nationwide highway network which became the Interstate Highway System, which was expected to be authorized by Congress. - which is used twice in different contexts; reword
    • Done.
  • The final section of I-40 in Knoxville to be completed was the segment connecting US 11W and US 11E/25W/70, which opened on December 19, 1967, to eastbound traffic[134] and on June 21, 1968, to westbound traffic. - why is the ref not after a punctuation mark? That's not entirely against the rules, but the rest of the article puts refs after punctuation (albeit the 2021 cost conversions, but that's justified)
  • The organization filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in December 1969 after Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe authorized the state... - false title
  • The suit was dismissed on February 26, 1970, by judge Bailey Brown, - another!
  • All refs must use the same casing (title case or sentence case) per MOS:CONFORMTITLE
    • Fixed.
  • Refs 15 and 22 have CSS maintenance errors for using the "authors" parameter
    • Fixed.

Bneu2013, that's all I got, mostly small comments on the prose. Nicely written. The only concern I can see coming up in the future in the article's prose size; it is impressively large for a highway, and that may cause concern from other reviewers (not myself, I think it's justified). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: - I've addressed all of your comments. With regards to the length, as I mentioned in the peer review, not only is this one of the longest highways in the country, but it passes through three urban areas with a population greater than one million, as well as near the center of population of the United States. As a result, it has definitely had more post-construction history than other Interstate segments of similar length, such as Interstate 25 in New Mexico or Interstate 80 in Nebraska. Add the Supreme Court case, Music Highway, and geological woes, and there's even more to talk about. At 9.2k words, this is still shorter than the max recommended 10k count at WP:Summary style, and all sections are at summary length, with no more than four paragraphs. I'm probably in danger of being accused of hypocrisy for defending the length, as I have been the one to oppose new additions on more than one occasion. Anyways, thanks for the review! Bneu2013 (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

I commented at the previous FAC and plan to finish my review within a week or so. I did not have too many comments other than grammatical nitpicks at the previous FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: - friendly reminder. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right, let me see what I can do. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Route description section last time, so I will look at the other sections now.
"Music Highway" and honorary designations:
  • "I-40 also bears a number of honorary names in Tennessee." - I'd change this to clarify that sections of I-40 have honorary names, because it currently sounds like the entire highway carries an honorary name.
  • "The Holston River bridge is named for both Ralph K. Adcock and Bid Anderson," - Does it have two honorary names, or a single name with both men's names?
    • This is an unusual situation. There is currently no signage on the Interstate, just on a road that passes under the bridge. The short answer is that it appears that each direction of travel on the bridge has a separate name. One of the signs below the bridge says "Ralph K. Adcock Memorial Bridge", and the other says "Bid Anderson Memorial Bridge". There is no sign with both men's names. While I'm pretty sure the two directions each have a separate designation, I can't conclusively confirm this from the source, and as such, adding this would constitute OR. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
History:
  • I noticed a lot of passive-voice sentences (e.g. "this was approved by the Bureau of Public Roads", "Its numbering was approved by the American Association of State Highway Officials on August 14, 1957"). Would it be better to convert these to active voice instead?
    • I'm not sure. This seems to be a common in road articles, but I think I understand your point. I have converted a lot of passive to active, such as "was opened" to "opened", "was completed" to "finished", etc. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "controlled-access highway in Knoxville, the state's first" - The state's first controlled-access highway?
  • By the way, what time periods are you considering "early construction", and what periods are considered "later construction"? I noticed that thee projects in the "early construction" section extend into 1966, but there's one project in the "later construction" section that started in 1961.
    • The title was originally "earlier construction", but was changed during the copyedit. Some people probably wouldn't like this wording, but it is more accurate. I have such restored this. Considering the length of this route, I think it's best to split the construction by opening dates. Nearly all of the sections took between 2 and 3 years to construct, some even a little quicker; for a highway this long, I don't think we need to list the dates each section began construction, and/or was let to contract, just when major sections began, such as the Nashville-to-Memphis link. While the Pigeon River Gorge section did indeed begin during the earlier years of construction, this is an outlier, and splitting this between the two would run the risk of confusing readers. Although not mentioned in the article, the second-earliest date that a segment in the Later construction section began construction was in 1964, which was also when more half of the route was either completed or under construction. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final section of I-40 in Knoxville to be completed was the segment connecting US 11W and US 11E/25W/70, which opened on December 19, 1967, to eastbound traffic and on June 21, 1968, to westbound traffic" - Out of curiosity, why did the two sides open at different times?
    • The sources don't say, but I suspect that either one side was completed early and they decided to open it, or the other direction experienced delays. A similar situation happened with the final section, partially opened in December 1974 and fully opened 9 months later. Although I haven't found any reliable sources that say this, someone I personally know who worked for the department at this time told me that this was done to allow Governor Winfield Dunn, who left office in January 1975, to keep his campaign promise to have all the state's mainline Interstates open by the time he left office. I don't know if this is true or not, but it wouldn't surprise me. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Epicgenius: - update - I just found this source (already cited in another article) that says the paving contract for this section was let on August 25, 1967. Although the article seems to imply that bridge construction and some grading had already been done, the contract included base, paving, interchange construction, and lighting, and 3-4 months was an unusually quick time to complete such a project, even one this short. So they may have finished the eastbound lanes early, and decided to go ahead and open them. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "requiring thousands of tons of earth and rock to be moved" - any specific figures?
  • "The last segment of the planned I-40 in West Tennessee to be completed was the Hernando de Soto Bridge in Memphis" - I noticed that the segment from SR 299 to US 27 near Harriman and Rockwood was completed afterward. Was this not part of the planned I-40? I may have missed this.
I'm up to the "Controversies" section now, and I will have more comments later. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - thanks. I've responded to all of your comments so far. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - Friendly reminder again. I must confess that I feel like a hypocrite for reminding, as I am extremely busy these days and don't have much time for Wikipedia outside of the weekends, and have to be constantly reminded myself. But I just wanted to make sure.

Also, I thought I might let you know that I made two minor changes outside of the review last week. First of all, I added the date that I-40 was approved to replace the northern loop of I-240 in order to signify that this did not immediately happen after the Overton Park section was canceled, as the previous wording seemed to imply. I also added the completion date of the last missing section. I had intended to do this almost two years ago when I found one of the sources from the state archives, but it totally flew under my radar. But now all sections have an opening/completion date. With regards to what the sources say, this short section was declared complete on the same day that the Nashville to Memphis section was completed, and one of the sources says the contractor planned to keep it open afterwards. I suspect it didn't receive much coverage due to the much greater milestone that was achieved on the same day. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries @Bneu2013. My job keeps me busy on weekdays as well, but I will have a few more comments tomorrow.
The other changes you mentioned are fine with me. I can understand if no reliable source definitively talks about an opening date - I've been in that position plenty of times. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - Friendly reminder again. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at this more in depth tomorrow, but I don't really see too many other issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Controversies:
  • "When the state announced the routing through the park, a group of local citizens spearheaded by a group of older women called "little old ladies in tennis shoes" by media outlets began a campaign to halt construction." - Do we need to mention the "little old ladies..." name? It seems relatively minor to I-40 itself (it might be noteworthy to mention in a hypothetical article about the protest though).
    • We don't have to, but I don't see any harm in doing so. Apparently the state seems to consider this noteworthy or else they probably wouldn't mention it in their history source. I doubt the protest would ever be worthy of its own article; the Supreme Court case article would be the place to go more in depth. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About four miles (6.4 km) of a controlled-access highway was built within the I-240 loop east of the park" - Did construction start after I-40 was rerouted onto the north section of I-240?
Memphis projects:
  • "The eastern interchange was reconstructed with two projects" - Should this be split off the first paragraph? I feel like this may be more related to the second paragraph.
    • That's a tough call to make. The current organization has three paragraphs of similar length, and splitting here would mess with that. Add to the complication the single opening sentence that is about a completely unrelated project. Splitting here would leave the opening paragraph with just two sentences, which is short. Although it would be nice for the eastern interchange to have its own paragraph, this would be difficult considering the size and scope of the two-phase project. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The single-lane ramp carrying I-40 westbound traffic through the interchange was rerouted as the exit ramp for Summer Avenue," - Looking at a satellite map, it sounds like you mean "repurposed" instead of "rerouted".
  • "The northern merge with I-40 and I-240" - The merge on the northern leg of the intersection? :**Yes - changed to "merge point". Bneu2013 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nashville area:
  • "The system (the first of its kind in the country) experienced technical problems," - Out of curiosity, do you know what type of problems? Or did these sensors just not work?
    • The source says that the system stopped working properly, and the sensors were damaged by heavy trucks, likely due to improper installation. Other than that, I don't know a whole lot. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Knoxville projects:
  • "While these projects were underway, the concurrent part of I-75 on this segment was rerouted around the western leg of I-640 (completed in December 1980) and the short segment of I-75 north of this segment became I-275." - Was the rerouting completed in December 1980, or was the western leg completed at that time? Unrelated, but this explains why I-75 uses I-640 in that area, rather than continuing straight down I-275.
  • "SmartFIX40, a project between I-275 and Cherry Street" - It may be helpful to briefly summarize the project in a few words.
  • "additional auxiliary lanes" - Were these frontage roads or entrance/exit ramps?
Other projects:
I should review the final sections by Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - thanks. I think I've addressed everything so far. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geological difficulties:
  • "A minor rockslide shut down the right lane of westbound I-40 at mile 343 on May 6, 2013." - Is this noteworthy enough to mention here? If so, do you know if there have been any other minor rockslides there over the years?
  • "Another rockslide in the gorge on October 26, 2009, however," - I'd remove "however".
  • "On January 31, 2012, the westbound lanes of I-40 were closed because of a rockslide near the North Carolina border. Traffic was detoured along I-26 and I-81, and the road reopened a few weeks later." - I'd remove the detour info and just combine this into one sentence, e.g. "On January 31, 2012, the westbound lanes of I-40 were closed for a few weeks because of a rockslide near the North Carolina border."
Incidents and closures
  • "10 people were injured, and two people who were inside of homes impacted by the fires later died from their injuries" - Per MOS:NUMERAL, "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure", so you should spell out 10 as "ten".
    • Done.
  • "the accident.[266] The accident" - This sounds a bit repetitive.
    • Fixed.
  • "A Canadian man was found dead on July 11, 1996" - This entire incident seems to have taken place in a hotel near I-40, not on I-40 itself, so I'm not sure it's related to this article at all.
That's all I have. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - all comments addressed. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by UndercoverClassicist

edit

Very much casting a non-expert's eye over this. Reading through the last FAC, it seems that the main sticking points were the use of Google Maps and general copyediting, and those seem to have been at least largely addressed already. There's something almost meditative about following the description of the road's course, and credit must go to the nominator and writers for making the prose so engaging. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: - I believe I've addressed all of your comments. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. There's a small MOS:SANDWICH on my display between the Hernando de Soto Bridge and the infobox, which might be fixed by right-aligning that picture. I'm happy on pretty much every point, and the replies I've left are minor issues that shouldn't affect the outcome. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Reviewing this version, spot-check upon request and with caveat that this isn't a topic I am deeply familiar with. Not sure that we usually give ISSNs to newspapers (#3, #196, #198 and #153), especially since not all cites to The Tennessean have it. Is the master's thesis #6 a high-quality source? #54 is a bill; did it become law? I kind of think that #157 needs a rewrite; a Senate hearing is only the opinion of the people heard, so we need to know their credentials. Are icons like #265 consistently applied to sources? Source formatting seems consistent with available information and other sources seem OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - While I was the one who retrieved the sources with ISSNs, it was someone else who added them. I don't think they are needed, and I can remove them if you would like. The master's thesis is a high quality source, and is corroborated by other sources, also. With regards to #54 it did become law, and is corroborated by #55. Although it was technically a resolution, not a law. I don't see the issue with #157; this hearing also included a presentation on the history of the controversy, which this source is used for here. Finally, what is the issue with #265 exactly? Thanks. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with #265 is that these icons are not consistently applied to sources. The problem with #157 is that the Senate isn't the source of the information of the hearing; we need to spell out what the "heard" information comes from. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - oh, the lock icon. That wasn't my addition, and I have removed it. There is no need for that icon since the source now links to a newspaper clipping that is visible to everyone. I've corroborated the Senate hearing with additional sources, and also removed the ISSNs. I hope I've addressed all of your concerns. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding - the problem with the hearing isn't its reliability per se, but rather that the citation gives no information on who was heard and which credentials they have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - are you saying that the citation template parameters need to be modified to say who was heard at the hearing? I don't know if you've looked at the sources or not, but the hearing includes testimony from multiple senators, the Governor of Tennessee, and state and federal transportation officials, among others. It also includes a chronology of the Overton Park controversy (which does not appear to be a transcript of anyone's personal testimony at the hearing) which is what the article relies on. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pretty much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - actually, having looked over the source again, the only testimony that is cited is that of then-Secretary of Transportation Brock Adams. But the page numbers are already listed, so I don't see the need to modify. Is there any way I could possibly insert a note in the citation template that directly attributes Adams's testimony? Bneu2013 (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd swap it into the author parameter and push the current item in that parameter to a publisher parameter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - done. Bneu2013 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing left to do is that #54 should probably be swapped against a citation to the actual law. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - done. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a pass, then, my usual caveats about no spotcheck and not much knowledge of the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Moabdave

edit

I reviewed this article, including some sourcing spotchecks at it's last FAC nomination, my comments are here. Unfortunately, I have some real life issues I'm dealing with right now that will likely prevent me from being able to do another review. I will attempt to at least re-check the sections I commented on to see what has changed. However, I'd like to note that by the time the last FAC closed, my lone issues were copyediting. All major issues of sourcing and policy compliance were resolved satisfactorily and I voted support pending a copyeditor review, which appears to have been done.Dave (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moabdave: - that's okay. I'm a lot busier my self than I used to be and have probably been trying to do more than I should at once recently. The only major changes were a few paragraphs about honorary designations, which I combined with the "Music Highway" section, and a few sentences about the planning for the Pigeon River section (which was a controversy in North Carolina). Bneu2013 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Interstate_40_in_Tennessee/archive3&oldid=1176480293"