Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 82

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

Decision on ACR - Withdraw --Admrboltz (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 82 (1 net support votes)

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: This article is long, and very well written. I have only worked on it for a few days, but I managed to get this to GA status and this article has had a copyedit. If successful, this article will be WP:ORSH's first A-Class article, WP:WASH's third, and WP:IH's third.

Nominated by: ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 00:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ from Admrb♉ltz (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now after changes have been made --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LEAD - The lead should not introduce new information that is not otherwise in the body. Can you move the AADT info and possibly write a new 2nd paragraph for the lead?
- In the RD "where the highway intersects SR 14 and leaves Washington on the Umatilla Bridge over the Columbia River heading into Oregon" your references are out of order, [29][21][30] should be 21 29 30.
- In the template, where is the Maintained by section for WSDOT and ODOT?
- Can you cite the SR 168 proposal?
- Can you cite the completion date of the highway 20 September 1988?
- Replies to comments from Admrb♉ltz (talk)
  - Y Done - I changed it to information about the Fred G. Redmon Bridge and about the 1999 plan to extend I-82 into Oregon.
    - Yes, but you didn't re add the AADT info which I liked. Find a spot for it somewhere in the main prose. --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - A new section called "Traffic"?
        Maybe before the bulk of the RD, before it talks about Washington, so it goes header, aadt, washington. --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Y Done ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 22:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y Done - Fixed.
  - Y Done - Added it in.
  - Y Done - RCW.
  - Y Done - Removed.

~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 00:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments — just a few comments for now.
- I edited the AADT section of the RD. First off, I added a link to the article annual average daily traffic to help readers understand the concept of where these figures come from. Also, a measurement is not complete without a unit, as my high school chemistry teacher would remind us daily in class. I added a non-breaking space and the work vehicles after all the numbers to complete the measurements with a unit of measurement. Having done that though, this information could be presented better. Otherwise it is just a list converted into a really long sentence. Maybe you could build a table and drop the litany of numbers from the paragraph? I didn't see what I-82's AADT count was in there, so that does need to be added.
  - Y Done
- You've also inconsistently not abbreviated a few of the highways linked in that section as well. All highways should be abbreviated after the first mention of one of that class. Aka since the very first sentence spells out "Interstate 82" with "(I-82)" after it, you can use I-# for all other insterstates on first and all mentions, but the first mention of a US highway is abbreviated when it should also be spelled out in full with the abbreviation in parentheses. The same goes with state routes.
  - Y Done
- While it isn't a requirement of the MOS, you should be using non-breaking spaces <nonwiki> </nonwiki> betweeen US and 97, SR and 24, etc.
  - N Not done
  - FYI, I'm getting dinged almost every time at FAC for not having non-breaking spaces. Some people that review FAC's really check for this. I would advise you to add them also. Dave (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a bit of WP:OVERLINKing here. I would suggest on an article of this length not relinking in each section. The RD isn't long enough that you need to relink place names in the History, IMHO.
  - Y Done
    - More overlinking in the references. The first time you cite a source published by a specific source, you can wikilink to it, but after that, don't. There's around a dozen links in the References section to WSDOT and ODOT each, just for starters. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all for now. I'll continue my review in greater depth later. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dave

I'll give you the same feedback I gave the previous nomination. It appears like this route passes through some interesting geography. I'd like to see some geographical references in the route description, rather than just the highways crossed.
- N Not Done
  - Why not? this would be simple to do and would add to the article. It's pretty obvious from a map the highway loosely follows the Columbia River between it's eastern terminus and Kennewick. From Kennewick I-82 very closely follows a tributary, Yakima River, from Kennewick to Saleh, then follows the eastern rim of a canyon created by this same river for the rest of the highway. (does this canyon have a name? does the mountain range crossed by this canyon have a range?) IMO the route description is not complete unless this is mentioned. There's a reason why the state DOT's built this highway on such a curvy path, and that reason is a body of water carved the path for them.
As a personal note not related to the quality of your nomination, there is a massive concrete arch bridge under construction for Interstate 580 (Nevada) that will be the longest concrete arch bridge in Nevada, and the longest bridge wholly inside Nevada (i.e. to exclude the Hoover Dam bridge partially in Arizona) =-). sign, one day I'll upload pics. It looks pretty good right now with all the falsework up =-)
If possible, I'd pick a different color for the extension of I-82 in the map. The pink is fairly close to the red and took me a while to figure out which was which.
- Y Done - Changed to green.
  - Much better, now you need to change caption to match, it still says "pink". =-)
The history section should mention the renumbering of I-80N to I-84 and how I-82 is now in violation of numbering standards. The lead mentions this, but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, this needs to be mentioned in more detail outside the lead.
- Y Done
There is a stray quotation mark in the last paragraph of the History section.
- Y Done - Removed.
There is an issue with the major intersections table, the table appers with a glitch on my browser in the row corresponding to the bridge and state line.
- Y Done
  - It's still there. Look at the row separator above the city of Umatilla.
Speaking of this row. I would just say Washington/Oregon state line. The bridge is covered in the route description.
- Y Done
WP:OVERLINK in the History section. California, Tri-cities, etc are linked multiple times in the same paragraph. The general rule is to only link the first instance, or first instance in each level 2 section for long articles.
- Y Done

Dave (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more, sorry. Currently the Auxiliary routes section is redundant. It has a bulleted list to the routes, then a navigation box with the exact same information. My advise would be to delete the section and move the navigation box with the rest at the bottom of the article. Dave (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected everything both of you have requested to be fixed except for the non-breaking spaces. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 23:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose MoS and comprehensiveness.
Way too many citations in the lead. The lead should summarize information already in the main article, and if that's the case, the main article should provide references and cites.
Make sure there are no spaces between block references.
Don't force image size.
Route description should be expanded.
History should be expanded.

–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 00:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we help to clear up something so you don't need to withdraw? Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, CG, don't give up just because some of the feedback is critical. Everybody here wants to help, or we would not have left comments in the first place.Dave (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your willingness, but I am caught up in schoolwork and volunteering, so I am putting the improvements onto the article ASAP, and then renominate after another peer review. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 22:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.