Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 70 in West Virginia/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 Ian Rose 14:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Interstate 70 in West Virginia

Nominator(s): AdmrBoltz 04:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Interstate 70's travels through the state of West Virginia. I had wrote a majority of this article before a long pause in activity on Wiki, however it is a Good Article, a WP:USRD A-Class article, and has been copy-edited previously by the Guild. AdmrBoltz 04:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - When I reviewed this article at ACR back in 2011, I supported with a disclaimer noting that the history seemed to be missing details on the construction of the highway. Is it still possible to add a little more detail about the construction of the highway? The history provides completion dates, but seems to be missing details about groundbreaking. Dough4872 04:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have expanded some, but there is limited information available. --AdmrBoltz 00:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - I do appreciate the addition of information about the pre-Interstate routes through the area. I will let the information about the construction suffice for now given the nominator has exhausted all reasonable efforts to expand the section. Hopefully, an editor with better access to West Virginia resources can possibly expand the construction details. After all, even FAs can be further improved. Dough4872 01:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

I mostly leave these roads and highways articles to their own devices, but thought I'd take advantage of this small one, for a tiny little stretch of highway, to dip into reviewing them. I've got a few observations as an outsider to this whole genre of articles. In general, I think the prose needs tightened up.

  • I'm an admittedly terrible lead writer, and it's tough to summarize short articles besides, but you might need a little more from the history section in the lead; it leans pretty heavily on the Route description material.
  • "The freeway passes above a light commercial zone as U.S. Route 40 (US 40) and US 250 become concurrent with I-70 as it travels east toward the Fort Henry Bridge." This is something of a garden path sentence. I initially read "as U.S. Route 40" as providing a synonym (which is true, so far as it goes, but isn't how the sentence is structured). The two clauses with "as" don't help readability, either.
  • "The bridge crosses the main channel of the river and the main branch of the Greater Wheeling Trail, a rail trail that parallels the eastern banks of the river." Does the trail have branches? The sentence is laid out in a way that made me expect "main branch" was going to introduce a stream or tributary until it mentioned a trail instead.
    • Perhaps branch isn't the right word for where the bridge crosses the trail, as the branch happens further south, but there are two parts to the path, one that continues south, and one that pushes east. (see map). "main branch" has been removed. --AdmrBoltz 13:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comma is needed after "Traveling eastbound".
  • "The intersected highways travel through downtown Wheeling on a one-way pair, with the southbound lanes passing under the freeway and the northbound lanes passing over the freeway." I assume that the "intersected highways" are US 40 / WV 2, and the "freeway" is I-70? I think this would be better with a different wording. For one thing, is it appropriate to call US 40 an "intersected highway" here; it meets I-70 at an interchange, not an intersection, yes?
  • "A stub ramp is present at this interchange that would have carried WV 2 north of I-70 had it been extended." Room to tighten the prose here. Perhaps "A stub ramp present at this interchange would have carried WV 2 north of I-70 had it been extended." ?
  • "The entirety of I-70 to this point has been elevated." Several problems here. First, no, clearly the entirety of I-70 until Exit 1B isn't elevated. Perhaps the section in West Virginia, but that's not what you're saying here. That aside, I'm dubious of the claim and its sourcing. As written, this comes after the Wheeling Tunnel, and I just cannot see how an interstate can be elevated through a tunnel. Also, this isn't cited to a reliable source for the claim, or any source at all, but just to a Google maps route that neither shows nor tells anything about the elevated status of the highway.
  • "The interchange just west of the Wheeling Tunnel and this interchange are complicated due to the fact that both are abutted by hills." Prose needs to be tightened here, and do you have a reference for this that says the topography made the interchange more complicated? There's a lot of lane-layout type information that's in here more or less uncited, in fact. And again, I'm not sold on the use of Google Maps as a reference; it assuredly does not tell us that the highway passes "through woodlands".
  • The sentence about AADT can lose "which is" at no cost.
  • In the history section, if there's going to be time spent discussing the National Road as the forerunner to I-70 through this area, it should be made clear that the interstate doesn't follow the same route as the older road. Are there any sources which discuss the impact of I-70's construction on the economy along the National Road? Perhaps not, as they're fairly close together, but if that's available, it would seem relevant.
    • I have expanded a bit on the history, explaining that the National Road and I-70 do not share the same path. I was unable to find any sources to talk about the impact of I-70 on the economy of the area. --AdmrBoltz 20:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an actionable objection, but I'm not sold on this dark, grainy image of the tunnel entrance. Perhaps consider the overhead view (File:Wheeling Tunnel overview 1994.jpg) that appears in the tunnel article, instead?
  • The history section feels like there might be more to tell. Groundbreaking? Official opening, if any? Also, the events aren't depicted in chronological order. I guess they're in west-to-east order again, but I'm not sure that's the best way to approach history. There were "parts" built by 1963; do we know what they were? They're certainly not the 1968 bridge, the 1955 other bridge, or the 1967 tunnel.
  • "After opposition from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which was representing residents who live on Wheeling Hill and other groups,..." Worded this way, it sounds like residents live on other groups. Probably need a comma after Wheeling Hill. And need to tighten the prose. Perhaps "residents of Wheeling Hill" or even "Wheeling Hill residents". I assume since the NAACP was involved that the Wheeling Hill community has a substantial or majority minority population?
  • If Wheeling Tunnel closures are sufficient parts of history to rate inclusion here, what about the 2005 closure of the Fort Henry Bridge due to flooding and loose barges?
  • "The total cost of the tunnel reconstruction project was over double the original bid, totaling $13.7 million, due to the numerous delays." The only cost numbers we've seen previously were the estimates for scrapping the tunnel and going over the hill, which are much higher than $13M. The reader is forced to work out that those figures aren't being referred to here, that this is a reference to the repair bid, and that, as this is double, the bid must've been around $6M or so. Probably.
  • The "As a Matter of Fact" reference has the page(s) cited styled as pp. I–2. But that's a single page, I-2, not multiples, and I'm fairly confident that takes a hyphen rather than an en dash. You do that again with page II-2 later. Oh, and although those references are both to pages of the same publication, they're formatted very differently.
    • They are actually two seperate documents if you review each carefully. And they both have dashes, not en dashes. --AdmrBoltz 13:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, but they shouldn't be dashes at all, they should be hyphens. Just like the highway is I-70 rather than I–70, the page should be I-2, not I–2. Also, your template is set up as though you were citing multiple pages (pp.), but you're not. That said, the more I look into these sources, the more concerned I am about their origin and reliability. I assumed that they were two sections from a longer document (thus the I- and II- page numbering). But I can't find that document, if it exists. The site they are hosted on, www.milleniumhwy.net, is not a reliable source; that wouldn't be a problem in and of itself if it was just republishing government documents (although ideally we'd link to an official source). But I'm not entirely sure how, or if, these were ever published in an official capacity. Do you have any further information? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The document does appear to have been published officially. (See here.). I will update the page numbering. --AdmrBoltz 15:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't have access to that, obviously, but I'm fairly certain it means that the two sections cited separately were originally part of the same document as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nor do I - how would you recommend I cite the document then? (As a Matter of Fact. West Virginia Division of Highways. January 1998. pp. I–2, II–8. OCLC 45763179.?)--AdmrBoltz 16:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'm leaning oppose. I think there's a lot of polish to be given the prose, which stands out as a comparatively bigger problem when there's not very much prose to polish. I'm also concerned about the sourcing; there are some unsourced or poorly sourced statements that sort of slide in here. Equivalents in other FA highway articles, such as the Colorado version of this one, seem to find government publications to support most of the highway structure and layout claims. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: I believe I've addressed your concerns. Can you please re-review the article? AdmrBoltz 18:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: - Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) has not responded to my talk page notification or my @ reply here on this article page. The editor has made no edits to Wikipedia since this review. --AdmrBoltz 19:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. The nom is still relatively young, so he may yet return before we consider closure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: - Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) still has not been editing on Wikipedia, and it has been 15 days since he reviewed my article. --AdmrBoltz 19:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I realise you've done your best to action his concerns but a quick scan suggests there's still room for improvement in the prose. I'll ask around for someone else to take a look, so sit tight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Prose and source review from Imzadi1979

Comments are forthcoming. I reviewed this a few years ago at the ACR stage, but I will take another look in the next few days as time allows for this review stage. Imzadi 1979 → 03:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • The sentence beginning, "The portion of the route in West Virginia..." seems superfluous after the one before it. Maybe they can be combined, or this second mention eliminated?
  • "The Fort Henry Bridge carries I-70 from Wheeling Island, across the Ohio River and into downtown Wheeling before entering Wheeling Tunnel." That could use a little tweak because otherwise it implies the bridge (as the subject of the sentence) enters the tunnel. Maybe: "The Fort Henry Bridge carries I-70 from Wheeling Island, across the Ohio River and into downtown Wheeling before the freeway enters the Wheeling Tunnel." ?
  • "auxiliary interstate highway" should have the I and the H capitalized; an interstate highway just crosses state lines, but an Interstate Highway is part of the specific system named for President Eisenhower.
  • "When the United States Numbered Highways system" should have the s dropped on highways and the word system should be capitalized and moved into the link since it is part of the system's name.

RD

  • "Entering West Virginia from Ohio, Interstate 70 (I-70) crosses..." I'd drop the full name and just use the abbreviation since it's been established in the lead. A bit further down, US 40's abbreviation is established, but that should be done on first mention in the lead so you can skip repeating it in the RD.
  • "After the interchange, I-70 enters the approximately 1⁄4-mile (400 m) long..." you should use |adj=mid|-long in {{convert}} so it reads "1⁄4-mile-long (400 m)". Any other similar constructions should be updated as well.
  • "In 2012, WVDOT calculated that..." I would add "the lowest and highest counts along I-70 in the state" or something to indicate that these are the edges of the range of traffic counts.

History

Exit list

  • All looks good.

References (source review) Overall all of the footnotes use reliable sources of high quality, so no qualms there.

  • FN 1: I would unlink the location and consider using the postal abbreviation for the state.
  • FN 2: Kevin Adderly is listed as the author/contact for the page, so I'd list him as the author, updating the dates as needed.
  • FN 3, et al.: books normally have their place of publication listed.
  • FN5: Richard Weingroff is the FHWA historian who put together that page, and I'd add |work=Highway History and drop the specific office (no longer seems to be credited to that office anymore).
  • FN 9, et al.: I normally suggest listing the location for TV stations when citing their online news articles, just as we'd list a location for a newspaper that lacks its city in the name.
  • FN 11: I'd silently insert the missing hyphen into "I70" for consistency with the rest of the article and convert the spaced hyphen (faux dash) into a colon to separate title and subtitle.
  • FN 14 & 29: I'd use |author=Staff for consistency with other footnotes by corporate authors.
  • FN 16: When I found a higher-resolution copy, I found more information to be used to cite it. U.S. Route 8 (FN 22) has the full cartography, scale and other information that we couldn't read on the previous copy uploaded to Commons. (Note, based on my readings and dealings this past semester with MLA citations and The Chicago Manual of Style, I now recommend always including a scale, even if it's "Scale not given", for a map except for variable scale online maps like Google, etc.)
  • FN 17: That map was published by the Public Roads Administration, not AASHO, and the full title should be: "Official Route Numbering for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways as Adopted by the American Association of State Highway Officials" with PRA credited as the cartographer and a "Scale not given" indicated.
  • FN 19: This should have the page number included, if possible. (Not all archives list it though.)
  • FN 20: This doesn't need FHWA wikilinked.
  • FN 21: This newspaper is published in Hopkinsville, KY, so that should be listed.

Otherwise the citations are in good shape, just minor details that are easily fixed. I'd be happy to support promotion after the article is updated. Imzadi 1979 → 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support—all of the above was quite minor, and I'm satisfied with the article now. Imzadi 1979 → 05:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and cursory source review

  • I edited the lead for clarity and took a few cues from the lead of Interstate 75 in Michigan, which I find to be a good example of how to write about a specific segment of a longer freeway.
  • "US 40 and US 250 become concurrent with I-70 at this interchange, before traveling east toward the Fort Henry Bridge." I wanted to review the source for this statement before editing it, but there is no relevant citation. The next citation (ref 4) doesn't seem to apply.
    • Added in the map citation that goes along with that. Typically I have left these at the end of the paragraph, but I can start adding them in when I cite other sources for other facts in the same paragraph. --AdmrBoltz 17:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second para of "Route description" has the same issue. I wanted to edit the opening sentences for clarity and went to consult the first citation I saw (ref 7), which doesn't cover most of the text leading up to it. It appears to be a source for I-470 being "the only auxiliary interstate highway in West Virginia", but what about all the other text in that para?
  • Ref 4b, verified.
  • Reb 2b, verified.
  • Ref 18, fails verification. The source supports the bridge being built in 1955, but not that the bridge was "The first portion of I-70 to be completed across West Virginia". I've often encountered this issue in road articles: You've supplied a primary source supporting a piece of data, but no source supporting the historical context.
  • The same problem exists for ref 17, actually. You provide a map supporting the freeway's existence in 1957 (although the map scale makes it almost impossible to see) but there is no support for "Passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 brought the Interstate Highway System to West Virginia"
    • The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 is the public act that made the Interstate Highway system, before that act passed, there was no such thing as the Interstate Highway System, thus the state could not have had one before the passage of that law. The map that was cited was the first documentation stating that I-70 would be routed through the northern panhandle. --AdmrBoltz 17:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added additional reference referring to the creation of the Interstate Highway System. --AdmrBoltz 00:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the article needs further copyediting but that is not possible if I can't verify all the facts. Admrboltz, please have a look at your citations to ensure that all text is cited and that you haven't inserted contextual statements that aren't supported by the given citation. As the article stands, I don't believe it meets criterion 1c in that it is not completely verifiable. --Laser brain (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Admrboltz for getting started on this. To be clear, I don't consider my feedback about sources for contextual statements to be addressed; this will require finding and adding substantive sources other than maps. --Laser brain (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to references 17/18 or...? --AdmrBoltz 00:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: - Can you follow up with what exactly you are looking for? I have moved to address your concerns. --AdmrBoltz 21:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was citing 17 and 18 as examples, but I hoped you would check your other map citations to ensure you aren't stating anything that's not clear from looking at the map. I am in and out today, but I can come back tomorrow and do some more spot checks. --Laser brain (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will ensure the citations are in order this evening. --AdmrBoltz 01:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready at any time now @Laser brain:. Thank you. --AdmrBoltz 02:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I'd like to see if you had time to re-review these concerns? --AdmrBoltz 18:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

  • I did a few further source checks and didn't find any other issues with missing citations. I also did not find any issues with close paraphrasing.
  • I've tried to do some more copyedits, but I've run into things that need editing but I'm not quite sure of the intended meaning:
  • "The first portions of what is now known as I-70 to be completed across West Virginia was the Fort Henry Bridge" You have written "portions ... was" indicating something may have been edited out or otherwise missing. Is there one portion, or are there multiple portions?
  • The Fort Henry Bridge was built just before I-70 was officially designated as a highway. I was trying to get across that the bridge was one of the first pieces of the highway, that wasn't yet official, to be completed. --AdmrBoltz 16:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, consider "The first portions of what is now known as I-70". Would removing "what is now known as" change the meaning of the sentence? It suggests something was built but was known as something else before it was known as I-70.
  • "Construction of I-70 across the panhandle was almost completed in September 1971, with a single carriageway completed in the final one and one-fifth-mile-long (1,900 m) segment of freeway near Elm Grove." I got lost here. What is a "single carriageway"? I clicked the link and went down a rabbit-hole of different articles including separate ones for "carriageway" and "single carriageway". Some of them say "carriageway" isn't NA English, so I don't know why we're using it here. Are you trying to say that traffic was only allowed in one direction, and the road was therefore not officially complete?
  • Only one of the two roadways (just seems like a clunkier word than carriageway) was open. Either the road was only open in one direction there, or traffic was seperated with cones on the one side of the higwhay - the source was not clear. --AdmrBoltz 16:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the opening of this $17 million ... portion off freeway" Off freeway? Typo or something else meant?
  • "The Fort Henry Bridge, along with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge, which carries I-470 and the Wheeling Suspension Bridge were all closed in January 2005" I can't unravel this. What carries I-470? Carries it where?

More work is needed on the prose. Despite how short this article is, almost every section has needed attention. --Laser brain (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I'm done checking sources and going through it. It might be helpful to get someone fresh to do another read-through for flow. I need to step away from it for a bit to get a fresh perspective. --Laser brain (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your copyediting and sourcing expertise. --AdmrBoltz 19:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Andy, briefly checking the changes since I last had a look, the prose has improved a good deal -- just made a couple of very minor alterations myself, so I think we can wrap this up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2014 (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_70_in_West_Virginia/archive1&oldid=1136097074"