Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/2011

• Images:
  • You already are working on my concerns for File:Along motorcade route 904.jpg regarding licensing.
  • Images should be geotagged.
  • Map is missing GIS source and location map for those unfamiliar with the sub-national breakdown of the US.
• References
  • Delink the Ludington Daily News redlink on ref 48.
  • Can your two {{google maps}} references be merged? There is no real reason to have one for IN and one for MI.
• The Michigan section includes 172.132 miles - Sandy doesn't like really specific decimal places in prose, maybe change to "approx 172 mi"?
• Link Indiana Toll Road in the Indiana section of the RD and not in the Freeway conversion.
• When you mention railroad branches, do they have names?
• Link divided highway in the SW Michigan section
• Link minor league baseball
• "This bypass was built in the early years of the 21st century"
• Inflation values should probably be commented out.
  • missed one: "from the Indiana Toll Road northerly to north of Three Rivers would cost over $200 million"
• Do the exit numbers and mileposts really not line up?
• Alpha sort your See also list.
• Can we add the other two images not used in the article from the Commons cat, the bottom half of the article seems a bit spartan.

--Admrboltz (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Images: the answer was in the EXIF data for the image: "David Hume Kennerly/Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library & Museum" is the source. Since he did it for the Library & Museum, which is administered by the National Archives and Records Administration, it's PD-USGov. Of the photos, I added the overpass image to the History section. The fall color image isn't the best, so I'd prefer not to use it for now. as for geotagging, I don't know where the overpass and fall colors photos are located, so I can't tag them. The museum is tagged though. The map has been updated with the inset, GIS, color key, etc.
• Figure rounded
• The map does not give names to the branch lines, just the operators.
• Links added
• Commenting the remainder out for now, yes.
• The exit numbers line up to the mileposts. The mileposts though don't line up to reality, probably to allow for future freeway conversion on the south end.

Imzadi 1979 → 01:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "One of the more iconic sections of the US 131 freeway in the Grand Rapids area is the S-Curve.<[54]" -- stray <.
• "G.R. Ford Freeway" in the RJL is a dab (set index) page.

--Admrboltz (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Imzadi 1979 → 01:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:

1. "Another large-scale construction project rebuilt an iconic section of the freeway through Grand Rapids in 2000.", is it possible to replace "an iconic section of the freeway" with "the S-curve"?
2. Is it possible for the services section to have a second level heading rather than a third level heading as part of the route description? This is similar to what is done in toll road articles.
3. The sentence "There are eight rest areas along US 131 that provide locations for motorists to pull off the highway and bathroom facilities." sounds awkward.
4. Is there any history of the road before 1919 worth mentioning?
5. Is it possible to find the construction costs for the US 131 freeway segments?
6. In the quote "the speed limit on the S-Curve must be reduced as low as 25 mph [40 km/h] on some bad-weather days because of the sharpenss of the turns and [the] numerous accidents [that] have occurred there.", is the metric conversion supposed to appear in brackets? Usually they are done in parentheses but the case may be different for quotes.
7. "School children in Anderson, Indiana wanted to honor James Whitcomb Riley, the poet the Hoosier State, in 1926 with a highway that connected the country's summer and winter resort areas.", it appears there is a missing letter in the second clause.
8. In the junction list, is it necessary to indicate the beginning of a divided highway? Dough4872 19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

1. Why? What's wrong with the sentence? It adds a little color to an otherwise slightly boring paragraph.

   It will help clarify what the iconic section is, maybe try "the iconic S-curve". Dough4872 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. When M-28, with a similar section, went to FAC, it was requested to either remove the services section, to move it into the RD because it's not a toll road, and there aren't as many services to discuss.
3. Tweaked.
4. Yes, it's called the "memorial designations" section. Beyond that, no.
5. Data not available. I don't have newspaper sources for all of the segments' openings, or I would have included that information already.

   There was nothing relevant that could be found in MI newspaper archives or Google News? Dough4872 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   If there was, I would have added it already. Imzadi 1979 → 01:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Anything inserted or changed in a quotation is done in brackets to denote that the change is the work of the current writer, not the original author or speaker.
7. Tweaked.
8. Ask MDOT why they switch from a single red line to a double red line. Since the transition point does not align with a junction, that's the way to do it. Imzadi 1979 → 01:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Usually, USRD articles do not indicate changes between divided and undivided segments, as these can be frequent on some roads and would overburden the junction list. I remember USRD discussed this issue in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 17#One-way pairs in junction lists?. I still would suggest removing it. Dough4872 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, if the issue is frequency, don't let that worry you. There's one (1!) transition point, and it's significant here. Imzadi 1979 → 01:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:

1. "US 113 is the primary highway within Worcester County, Maryland", maybe indicate it is primary north-south highway as US 50 is an important east-west road in the county.
   •  Fixed Added north–south adjective to the sentence.
2. "US 113 is one of three major north–south highways in Sussex County", maybe indicate what the other two major highways are.
   •  Fixed Added "Along with US 13 and DE 1" to the beginning of the sentence in question.
3. In the history section of the lead, it may help to indicate the northern terminus was in Dover when the highway was created.
   • Dover is mentioned in second sentence of the history paragraph ("in Delaware the highway was the Selbyville–Dover portion of the DuPont Highway"). It sounds like you think that fact should be more explicit. My first idea is to start the next sentence with "The Pocomoke City–Dover highway was designated US 113..." Would that be explicit enough or do you have a better idea?
     • I just thought it may help to mention Dover was the northern terminus of the US 113 designation initially so that a reader does not assume US 113 only followed the Dupont Highway to Milford. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
       •  Fixed I added a variation of my idea to make it explicit that US 113 was designated in 1926 between Pocomoke City and Dover. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. The sentence "After the intersection with MD 365, the highway turns north and reduces to a two-lane highway, then traverses Purnell Branch, crosses the Snow Hill Line of the Maryland and Delaware Railroad at-grade, and turns northeast again as the highway receives the other end of US 113 Business" is too long and needs to be split.
   •  Fixed Split into two sentences.
5. "scattered industrial concerns" sounds a little awkward, try a different word here.
   •  Fixed Changed concerns to properties.
6. If I recall correctly, the section of Selbyville that US 113 passes through is more commercial than industrial.
   •  Fixed I added commercial to the description.
7. In the route description, there seems to be missing details about the physical surrondings. For instance, the article does not mention whether the road runs through residential or business areas of the towns it serves as well as the part between Berlin and the Delaware border. In addition, the article seems to imply that US 113 simply passes through forests between Georgetown and Milford. It may help to mention the road passes through farmland near the DE 16 intersection.
   • I am not sure that level of detail is necessary, and I would like a second opinion on that. I realize description of surroundings may be inconsistent in this article, so I would like further guidance on how detailed I should be.
8. "US 113's interchange with US 50 was built in 1976, along with a future interchange with MD 90 that sat unused for a quarter century", the use of "quarter century" does not seem right here as it was more than 25 years since the interchange was put into use.
   • According to NBI, the interchange was built in 1976. According to the 2000 Worcester HLR, the interchange opened for use in 2000. So 24 years. I like the use of "quarter century" or "almost a quarter century" to suggest a long time, but if precision is more important here, I can replace it with the number of years. Also, should I add state highway map references for that interchange?
     • Using "almost a quarter century" or "24 years" would be more politically correct here. Also, map references would help here. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
       •  Fixed I rewrote the two sentences in the particular paragraph, using the term "24 years," and added map references. I also added the bridge reference for the US 113-US 50 interchange that was missing. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. The only part of the old State Road that has that name runs from Milford to just north of Georgetown and does not run all the way to Selbyville. Is the original State Road that crossed the county know by other names in some places today? If so, it may help to mention what the segments are known as today.
   • The point of mentioning the State Road is to reference the DuPont Highway's predecessor road, not to go into detail about that road. US 113 never followed the State Road, so it is even less relevant to mention the names of the roads that follow the path of the State Road.
10. Some more detail about the Dupont Highway can be added to the history.
    • Do you have specific details you would like to see? Can you suggest any resources I should use?
      • Reference 6 has a bunch of information about the planning of the Dupont Highway that would make the article more interesting, such as the designs that were initially planned for the road. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. "Expansion of US 113 to a divided highway began in the latter half of the 1950s. US 13's bypass on the south and east side of Dover was completed by 1952; US 113 and US 113A's courses did not change, as US 113 was co-signed with US 13 on that portion of Bay Road, which had been upgraded to a divided highway, to the same northern terminus", it may help to indicate where this location is in the present.
    •  Fixed Added location of the northern terminus: State Street near Dover International Speedway.
12. When mentioning the completion of the US 113 Frederica bypass, there should be a mention that DE 12 was extended along part of the former US 113 to the route north of Frederica.
    • I do not have a source that states or shows in what year that extension happened (neither does the DE 12 article), so I would prefer not to mention that.
      • I would assume DE 12 was extended as soon as US 113 was relocated to keep the two routes connected. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Fixed I added information about DE 12 being extended to US 113. If anyone can find a source to when DE 12 was extended, the year can be added later. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. The references in the article appear to show US 113's northern terminus cut back to the junction with US 13 prior to 1976. Is there perhaps a non-map source that could possibly verify this?
    • If there is such a non-map source, I am not aware of it. Since you are more familiar with Delaware, do you have any suggestions?
      • I would not happen to know of one at the current time, but I would assume AASHTO may have something regarding any possible truncation. Also, looking at the DelDOT maps, it appears US 113 was removed from US 13 between the 1965 and 1966 maps, as the 1965 map has US 113 on US 13 and the 1966 map does not. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Fixed I see what I did wrong here. I corrected the information to reflect your explanation, which matches what the maps say. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. The History section does not mention any information about how the routing of US 113 was affected when the DE 1 freeway was constructed in the area of Dover Air Force Base in the 1990s.
    • I do not think the routing was affected significantly. US 113 may have hopped onto the freeway from Bay Road for a few miles, but I am not sure how I would source that.
      • When DE 1 was constructed, the portion of Bay Road in front of Dover AFB became a freeway with a diamond interchange for the base's main gate. Northbound US 113 left the freeway for Bay Road at the interchange for DE 10/DAFB north gate and southbound US 113 joined the freeway further north at the point where DE 1 passes over Bay Road. Try looking at maps from the 1990s as well as non-map sources. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added a sentence explaining the upgrading of US 113 to a freeway from the southern end of Dover AFB to Exit 95. Since Exit 95 involves both the ramps at DE 10 and where DE 1 crosses Bay Road as two complementary partial interchanges, I did not explain the stretch of Bay Road "within" the interchange. Is an explanation necessary or would it be too much detail or too confusing? Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The sentence that was added seems fine in terms of detail, however there is redundancy in mentioning the dates at the beginning and end of the sentence. In addition, the 2001 date for this upgrade is inaccurate as it actually took place between 1990 and 1994 when the DE 1 freeway was built between Dover and Smyrna. Dough4872 22:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Fixed Proper chronology of Dover AFB freeway upgrades added. Viridiscalculus (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Some information about why US 113 was truncated from Dover to Milford could be added to the article.
    • The only information I could find on a rationale was in the US 113 article at AARoads. That information is sourced to a personal email. Until I see a more official source, I am going to treat the rationale as speculation, which is something to be avoided in Wikipedia.
16. More information about the dumbbell interchange at MD 12 as well as the freeway plan in Delaware can be added to the Future section.
    • Unless I missed something, the freeway plans in Delaware are still under study. I am not sure what more I can add about the MD 12 interchange. Perhaps you can point me to some sources on these proposed projects that go beyond what SHA/DelDOT are saying?
      • For the MD 12 interchange, the MD 12 article has some additional detail about the planned interchange. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not think adding the dollar amount of the interchange (which is likely out of date) or an explanation of the type of interchange (the linked article does that) would be helpful, so I am going to leave it out. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. I am not sure if the intersections with unnumbered roads in Maryland should be included in the junction list, even if they were formerly part of routes.
    • I would like another opinion on that, since we disagree here. Also, I am not sure DE 24 Alt should be included in the Junction list, since the mileage cannot be sourced and the designation is not official in the DelDOT Traffic Reports.
      • DE 24A is a signed route and junction lists are supposed to include all state routes, whether mileposts are known or not. For reference, DelDOTs route log for other state routes does not have mileposts for some intersecting state highways. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. The Bannered routes section needs references. Dough4872 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My impression is the information in the Bannered routes section are essentially Lead paragraphs inviting the reader to head to the main article to get the details and sources. Is that interpretation incorrect by Wikipedia guidelines?
      • I had actually split the two bannered routes out of this article and left the leads here to provide a summary with a link to the main articles. From that perspective, this may be a place where references are not needed as the information can be verified in the subarticles. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Dough. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I also missed something important in the history. When mentioning the 2004 truncation of US 113, the whole route north of Milford was not replaced by DE 1. The northernmost part between Dover Air Force Base and US 13 became an unnumbered part of Bay Road. Dough4872 03:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Fixed I added a sentence about Bay Road being unnumbered north of Dover AFB after US 113 was truncated. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed everything, either fixing it or asking for a second opinion, except for #10. I will look through the DuPont Highway source in the next few days and see if anything relevant can be found to add to the article. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Image Review:
   1. File:US 113 map.png - Lacking key and GIS source.
      • I did not make this map, so I am not sure what to do here. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Legends are pretty easy, see the Iowa ACR or M-6's ACR. As far as the GIS, you can ask the map creator where s/he got the data from. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have never created or altered a map image before, so I have put in a request for map correction at WP:USRD/MTF/R. Since this article is in ACR, the request should be filled in a reasonable amount of time. Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your not altering the map though, your just changing the image description page on commons. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would suggest contacting the map maper, 25or6to4 (talk · contribs) to see about the GIS source, and I know Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) can help you with the key. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              •  Fixed 25or6to4 created an updated map with all necessary metadata filled in.  VC  19:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
   2. Alt text. I know its no ones favorite, but FAC is going to look for it. Check the tool, it will show you which ones are missing alt text.
      • I will work on the Alt text shortly. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alt text is done. Viridiscalculus (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. "The highway runs 74.75 miles" - I may know the context of runs, but a non roadfan may not. Suggest "spans" or something similar.
   • I think a non-road fan would be able to figure out what it means given the length is the very next thing in the sentence. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     • Fair enough. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. "dualization" - once again, I know what this is, but most would not. I don't think theres a article on this. If someone can scrounge up some sources, it might be an important article for a lot of these older highway articles.
   •  Fixed I rewrote the sentence to remove the word "dualization." Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     • Looks good. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. "All of US 113 is part of the National Highway System.[3][4]" - fact appears in lead but not in prose. Add to prose and remove cites from lead.
   • Facts that are mentioned in the Lead do not always have to appear in prose. In this case, the fact only appears in the Lead and is referenced there. I am going to keep it that way unless there is some kind of rule that states otherwise. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     • I cant find it in WP:LEAD but I've been dinged for it before. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. In RD - MD, how do you know all these roads are unsigned MD routes, and former alignments of the hwy. I tried to look at the log book, but I dont see this noted.
   • Unfortunately, I am not sure how to properly reference that a highway is unsigned in a way that is not original research. I think the information is important and should be kept, but if it comes down to referencing it or it has to go, I think I can work it out. The former alignments of the highway can be referenced using the same sources used in the History. Since the information about old alignments is referenced in the History, does it also need to be referenced in the Route description? Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     • Would the MD highway log book show the highway and the street name? --Admrboltz (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
       • The MD log shows both the highway and street name. However, the log does not indicate whether a highway is signed or not. I am not sure if there is a resource that states which highways are signed and which are not. The only way to find out that I know of is to go out into the field, which borders on original research. Typically, highways longer than a mile are signed and highways under a mile are not, but there are too many exceptions both ways in the Maryland highway system to be able to claim a particular highway is signed or not without actually observing it. Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. "The divided highway was extended north along the Frederica bypass in 1965; DE 12 was later extended north from Frederica to the bypass along old US 113.[36][44][2]" - -refs out of order.
   • I am seeing the references in the correct order. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     • • Should be ref 2, then 36, then 44 not 36, 44, 2. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
         • I understand what you want me to do. I just am not seeing it; when I look at the article, I see "The divided highway was extended north along the Frederica bypass in 1965; DE 12 was later extended north from Frederica to the bypass along old US 113.[2][36][44]" The reference calls are in the correct order in the edit interface. Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
           • Hrm, looks good. Nevermind --Admrboltz (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Major intersections table missing scope parameter per MOS:RJL.
   •  Fixed Added scope parameters to column headers. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Wikilink Right-in/right-out interchange in Major intersections.
   •  Fixed Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. If US 113 Alt. doesn't exist anymore, why is it in the '08 log book?
   • By log book, I am guessing you mean reference 2, the "Traffic Count and Mileage Report: Interstate, Delaware, and US Routes." for 2008. I commend you for a great catch as I had forgotten to investigate updating that reference with the 2009 report. Incidentally, the 2009 report does not have US 113 Alt listed. The 2008 report also did not reflect US 113 being truncated. I have no idea why DelDOT kept that info in there for four years after it was removed. The AASHTO reference, reference 55, backs up the claim that US 113 Alt was removed in 2004. However, this brings up a new issue. I would like to put in a reference to the 2009 report, but I should really keep the 2008 report reference because the 2009 report does not contain the mileage number for the northern terminus. Should I link to one report, either 2008 or 2009, or both? Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     • I would update the whole article to use the 09 log, but if you have access to an 04/03 log then use that to cite the mileage for the Alt route, and then just cite the end date w/ ref 55 in the {{infobox road small}}. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
       •  Fixed I updated the 2008 report references to 2009, and added the 2003 report to use for US 113's total DE mileage and US 113 Alt's mileage.  VC  19:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Refs 11 12 14 16 17 why are the dates bold?
    • The dates are bold because the dates are volume titles. Template:cite journal automatically makes what is in the volume parameter bold. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Suggest abbreviating Delaware Department of Transportation in the first ref (e.g. Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) then using DelDOT in the remainder of the references to tidy up the ref list.
    • I am going to keep the names spelled out as they are for consistency. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Ref 57 58 59 60 should be changed from ALL CAPS to Start Case per MOS:ALLCAPS.
    •  Fixed Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks good. --Admrboltz (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Admrboltz. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Some quick comments after recent changes... Can the length of the bridges and tunnel in the exit list be indicated by making the distance a range? For example, if the tunnel is a quarter mile (let's round to 0.3) then maybe its milemarkers are 0.8–1.1 instead of just 0.9.
    •  Done --AdmrBoltz 15:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wheeling Tunnel length is given in the RD, converted to meters and in the History converted to kilometers. Just for consistency, they should match, but really, you don't really need the measurement in the History. It's actually kinda picky, but when using the word "long" or "wide" with a measurement that's an adjective, ideally the extra word is hyphenated into the measurements as well. ({{convert}} has an option to do that.) It's either "The tunnel is a quarter mile (400 m) long." or "The quarter-mile-long (400 m) tunnel is..." or just "The quarter-mile (400 m) tunnel is...". For such a simple fraction like a quarter, a third or a half, I'd prefer to see it it written than in fractional format than 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2.
    • Removed second measurement. --AdmrBoltz 15:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "causing travelers to have to detour through Wheeling, or onto I-470". Can you find a source for the detour? [1] mentions using I-470.
    • Already used that page, so added to that sentence as well.
  • Last item, but both links in the See also section are in the article already, making them redundant. Maybe we can find something else to insert there though to preserve the section, like the link to National Road? Imzadi 1979 → 10:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done --AdmrBoltz 15:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:

1. "I-70 enters the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia, Ohio County, and the city of Wheeling as it crosses the Ohio River. Traveling east, the highway intersects and becomes concurrent with U.S. Route 40 (US 40) and US 250, crossing the Fort Henry Bridge from Wheeling Island." Can this sentence be made more clear to say that it crosses the west channel of the Ohio River from Ohio onto the island, intersects US 40 and US 250, and then crosses the east channel of the Ohio River onto the mainland?

   Reworded. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. The route description could use some more detail on the physical surroundings. What kind of development does I-70 run through while passing through Wheeling? Does the road pass woodland or fields in the rural areas?

   Added. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   When describing the portion through Wheeling east of the tunnel, it would help to mention the freeway passes near homes. In addition, some mention should be made of the road passing buildings on Wheeling Island. Dough4872 01:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   This has been completed. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Can some more details about the construction of I-70 be added to the history section?

   What I could dig up is what was available on the web. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Is there any way to do some offline research to find construction details? Dough4872 01:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I tried all the databases I have access to via the Salt Lake City Public Library, however their selection of non UT/CO papers is limited to the Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Post, neither of which provided helpful articles. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Is there an official WVDOH source that can be used for the mileage in the exit list? Dough4872 01:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Not that I have seen. Most states you can use AADT data, but WV only does maps, and there are no mileposts on them. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fredddie

I have a number of comments. –Fredddie™ 02:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is about half as long as I think it should be.
  •  Done maybe. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead doesn't mention the tunnel at all.
  •  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• '32 and 60 thousand cars per day' should read '32–60,000 vehicles per day' unless trucks aren't allowed on the road at all (lead and RD)
  •  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• First sentence of the RD reads too similarly to the first sentence in the lead.
  • Tweaked. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not exactly clear that the first part of I-70 is on Wheeling Island
  • Tweaked. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No description of the US 40/WV 2 interchange. It's really neat.
  • Added some info. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How long is Wheeling Tunnel?
  •  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You shouldn't use interchange as a verb. While on the subject, I would find another verb to use for intersect. I'm not saying you have to replace it, but I think there's a better way to say it.
  •  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no wikilink for WV 88 in the RD.
  •  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The US 40/WV 88 interchange could be described in a little more detail.
  •  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The RD could be a little bit longer. I know it's only 14.5 miles, but a little more can be said.
  •  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly better than it was before. I will get out the fine-tooth comb and go through it again before I will support. –Fredddie™ 13:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out the points I'm satisfied with. I still think some more detail can be given about the interchanges. For instance, why is the US 40/WV 2 interchange complex? Having looked at a map, I know it's because US 40/WV 2 are on one-way streets that abut a mountain. –Fredddie™ 03:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These have been fleshed out a bit more. --AdmrBoltz 03:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's good. –Fredddie™

• "Between 32-60,000 vehicles per day on average use the freeway." I know what you mean here, but I'm pretty sure that even on a slow day, more than 32 vehicles use I-70. - Algorerhythms (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweaked. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the "Between" in front of the range, the first construction was correct before Fredddie's suggested change. An en dash is not supposed to be used as a typographic substitute for one word (and) when two words are involved (between... and...). Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the correct way is "...between 32- and 60 thousand..." –Fredddie™ 03:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is that is listed currently acceptable? --AdmrBoltz 04:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do like that even better. –Fredddie™ 04:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I support with no disclaimers. –Fredddie™ 01:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • You have three dead links.
    • I am having problems with the dead links. If I can't fix them, I'll remove them altogether. --PCB 00:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done --PCB 00:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your missing alt text for the map. You can use |map_alt=foo for that.
    •  Done --PCB 00:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed limits need to use {{convert}} (e.g. 45 miles per hour (72 km/h)). Make sure all your distances and speeds are wrapped in convert.
    •  Done --PCB 00:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments to come soon.--AdmrBoltz 00:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After fixes from others, I am OK with supporting this article. --AdmrBoltz 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the first sentence, I would call it a 7-mile-long interstate. Those 450 feet don't really make much of a difference.
• U.S. state should be wikilinked.
• "The western terminus of I-270 is at the interchange with I-25 and US 36 at Welby, but mileposts reset at I-76." This sentence confuses me. This shouldn't be how I-76 is first mentioned.
• Don't use interchange as a verb.
• "...meeting its eastern terminus at..." can be simplified to "ending at".
• First section of I-270 was completed from where to Vasquez Boulevard?
• What former alignment?
  • I think I fixed this. If not please tell me what I need to fix.--PCB 02:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "...was contracted in 1993 and completed in 1999." should read "contracts were let in 1993 and construction completed in 1999."
• "Since completion, this segment has undergone more construction for new bridges." This sentence is sloppy

This is only the lead. I'll review the next section after this is fixed. –Fredddie™ 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finished all (I hope.) Thanks for breaking up the review into chunks to not overwhelm the page. --PCB 02:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the mileposts reset? While you work on that, I'll review the next section. –Fredddie™ 02:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• You should cite the speed limits. If you can't, remove them.
  •  Done. --PCB 15:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would move the concurrency (road) link to the RD. Other peer reviews I've followed have suggested formatting the link [[concurrency (road)|is concurrent with]] because the it's a verb phrase and not just a verb.
  • Fixed it myself. –Fredddie™
• If you mention US 36 not being signed in the lead, you should do so in the RD as well. Does Colorado have a policy of not signing overlapping routes? Either way, you should explain it.
• All distances, even one mile, should have a conversion. For one mile, I would simply type it out. one mile (1.6 km) The non-breaking space is required per the MoS.
  •  Done. --PCB 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't use interchange as a verb. Both paragraphs.
  •  Done. --PCB 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The route passes under I-76, where mileposts reset due to..." should read "When the route passes under I-76, the mileposts reset...". The rest of the sentence "...to the original alignment of the route." is pretty weak. It should be rewritten with a little bit of history. Why was the alignment changed?
  •  Done. --PCB 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed it myself. –Fredddie™
• "...which is only accessible from westbound I-270, and whose entrance merges into eastbound I-270, ..." Avoid repetition as much as possible. I would probably have said "the westbound and eastbound lanes", respectively.
• Amidst isn't the word you're looking for. Amidst is when you're in the middle of a crowd of people. Use through instead.
• "...suburban Adams County..." If it's a suburb, which one is it?
  •  Done. --PCB 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name of the suburb I do not have. It may not have been a suburb after all. --PCB 22:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "...at that point also concurrent..." Needs a verb.
  •  Done. --PCB 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't like how it reads. –Fredddie™
• Why is US 6 unsigned?
• Insert a comma after SH 35 (Quebec Street).
  •  Done. --PCB 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "...meet its southeastern terminus..." Sounds sloppy.
  •  Done. --PCB 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my review of the route description. –Fredddie™ 04:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) *"The freeway heads southeastward passing under York Street, which is only accessible from westbound I-270, and whose entrance merges into eastbound I-270, and crossing the South Platte River [7] through Adams County. I-270 enters the city of Commerce City,[8] running roughly parallel with the nearby Sand Creek [9] and crossing over SH 265 without an exit.[10][11]" This is an epic run-on sentence. –Fredddie™ I did a second pass of the RD and fixed a few things myself. –Fredddie™ 17:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Rather than starting the history section with a subheading, I would write a lead paragraph for the history section. Check out US 30 (IA) for what I'm talking about. It doesn't have to be long; three or four sentences will suffice.
  •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The first sentence in the construction section is a run-on. It should read. "Construction on I-270 began in 1965. The first segment cost about $2.7 million to build. It opened in 1968, connecting I-70 to Vasquez Boulevard."
  •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• When talking about I-76 before it was renumbered, you should refer to it as I-80S. Then replace the next sentence with "I-80S became I-76 in 1976."
  •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would reconstruct the sentence about the extension similarly to the how I suggested the first sentence, except put a full stop after $11.4 million and delete "however, the mileposts still restart when the highway reaches I-76." The information is repeated in the next sentence, so duplication isn't necessary.
  •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would remove the last sentence in the construction sentence. It kind of contradicts the preceding sentences.
  •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• When did reconstruction of the bridges begin? If you can't find anything, I would replace " ...by May 1998. By the end of the year..." with "...in the late 1990s. By the end of 1998, ...".
  •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "In February 2000, a connection between westbound I-270 and westbound US 36 was completed,[19] which was formerly not available. I-76 westbound was also connected to I-270 westbound during this time.[15][20]" These two sentences should be rewritten as a complete thought. As it is, it's disjointed and doesn't flow.
  •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I-76 westbound was also connected to I-270 westbound during this time." can be removed now since it's in two consecutive sentences. –Fredddie™
      •  Done. --PCB 16:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The first sentence of the improvements section says bridges were replaced over Washington Street in 1998. Then it says new bridges were built in 2002. Did Colorado DOT really build new bridges over Washington Street twice in five years?
  • Not quite sure. This seems to say so. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do some more digging and come back with a more confident answer. :) If they really built the same bridges twice in ten years, there are bound to be some cries of government waste. –Fredddie™
      • Here's the clarification. The first time the bridges were constructed was for westbound I-270, the second time for eastbound. I clarified it in the article. --PCB 22:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't call the I-25/I-270 interchange incomplete. If you look at just that one interchange, yes it's incomplete. If you zoom out a few levels, and look at the I-25/I-270, I-25/I-76, and I-76/I-270 interchanges as a system of three close , you'll see that all possible movements are covered. It might be a good idea to move this to the RD and explain it thoroughly.
  •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ✗ Not done. The three interchanges as a unit are not mentioned at all. –Fredddie™
      • Wasn't quite sure how to word it. As of now it sounds a bit awkward. --PCB 16:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed it myself. –Fredddie™
• Departments of Transportation cannot worry, but officials in the organization can.
  •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The last paragraph should be at least twice as long. Two sentences does not a paragraph make.
  • I just got rid of it. I believe it isn't really pertaining to the topic and I can't get any more information out of it. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my review of the history section. –Fredddie™ 19:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Looking over the review so far, I have struck out what's been sufficiently corrected. –Fredddie™ 02:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so you know where you stand I am leaning towards support, but I will wait for other comments before deciding either way. –Fredddie™ 01:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last issue I have is a reason why US 36 and US 6 are unsigned where they are. There has to be an official reason somewhere. –Fredddie™ 16:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best answer I have found so far is that CDOT thinks that overlapped routes are useless to co-sign. I'll keep digging. --PCB 16:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I sort of explained it. Tell me if I didn't. --PCB 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm still looking for a why. What's there now just kinda says the same thing. I'm not sure it's any better. If there's no good answer for why, the best solution will be removing any mention that the routes are unsigned and then dance around why that is. –Fredddie™ 03:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Short of a CDOT policy document that states why, or a rare newspaper article or column that discusses the issue, I don't think we'll have a why. It's probably best to ignore that 8-ton elephant in the room. Imzadi 1979 → 03:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I ignored most instances of "Highway X is not signed." --PCB 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:

1. In lead, link "overlaps" to concurrency (road).
   1.  Done --PCB 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Can some more descriptive information about the route be added to the lead?
   1.  Done at your discretion --PCB 02:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. There are still several issues that have not been addressed from the PR:
   • The route description should make mention to the fact that I-270 has a westbound exit and eastbound entrance at York Street.
     •  Done. But it might not be clear. --PCB 02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
       • "The road heads southeastward before passing under York Street, which is only accessible from westbound I-270, and whose entrance merges into eastbound I-270," I would suggest condensing this to "The road heads southeast and comes to a westbound exit and eastbound entrance with York Street". Dough4872 03:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
         •  Done. --PCB 03:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
   • The route description could use some more details pertaining to the physical surroundings of the route. What kind of development does it pass along the way?

      Done. --PCB 00:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   • In the history, is it possible to find the construction costs for I-270?
     • I don't think there are any more. --PCB 01:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
       • Are you sure there are no sources to verify the construction costs? It may take a little research. Dough4872 01:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
         • I have only one source for all costs. Is there a problem with this? --PCB 02:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
           • Have you checked any newspaper archives or old CDOT documents for costs? Dough4872 03:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
             • I don't believe CDOT publishes any construction costs. I do believe some of the costs are referenced to newspaper articles. (The newspaper for the region, the Denver Post, sells archived articles.) --PCB 03:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Is it possible to realign the pictures so that they are not on top of each other?
   1.  Done --PCB 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. "Bridges along I-270 over Washington Street were replaced and finished by May 1998, as were bridges over Washington Street, costing $12 million.", there seems to be some redundancy in this sentence.
   1.  Done --PCB 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Is it possible to request a map of the route that shows it in better detail? Dough4872 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
   1. Image:I-25 Denver.svg How is this? --PCB 05:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      I would say no just because the focus of that map is I-25. We don't want to confuse readers with an ambiguous map. –Fredddie™ 12:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Plus, it's wrong. I-270 goes to I-25. --PCB 15:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      You can request a new map at WP:USRD/MTF/R. Dough4872 16:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck through the resolved issues. Dough4872 03:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Imzadi1979

I reviewed the article at GAN against the GA Criteria, and now I'm going to review it against the more stringent expectations for A-Class or FAs. I've been following the comments by others, and I think the article is much improved. I'm pleased to see the amount of press sources used now. I'll detail the rest of my comments in bullet form below shortly. Imzadi 1979 → 22:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The map should be changed. I'd make a request at WP:USRD/MTF/R for an updated map. What's there now should be used in the new map as part of an inset.

   I requested a map which may not come for a while. --PCB 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Give it some time. I'm sure someone will get to the request. I'd offer to do it, but I don't have those skills yet. Imzadi 1979 → 16:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. The date in the infobox should be cited.
3. I'd consider inserting the I-76 and US 85 junctions in the infobox.
4. Just a pet peeve, but "due to" sounds less than proper to me. In the lead you have: "where mileposts reset due to the former alignment of the route from I-76 to I-70" I'd change that to "where the mileposts reset because of a previous freeway extension." You can leave the exact details for the body of the article.
5. The rest of the lead's summary of the RD is also a bit too exact. I prefer that the lead summarize in general details, rather than specifics. Give the reader enough detail to summarize the article, but not duplicate it. If they want more, they'll read on.
6. The infobox says 1965; the lead says 1968. I know (from the body) that the 1965 is the year they broke ground, and 1968 is the year the first section opened. I would insert a mention of construction starting in 1965."Ground broke on the first segment of I-270 in 1965 and it was completed in 1968..."
7. "The section between I-25 and I-76, was completed in 1999." Extra comma.
8. In the future section, you have "Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) plans... project. CDOT plans..." Can you mix up the subject-verb combinations there? The last sentence is a "CDOT also plans...". Proposes/proposals, goals, ambitions, intends/intention, aims, wants etc. are all good substitutes.

Otherwise, the article looks pretty good. Imzadi 1979 → 23:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get these to these issues as soon as possible. Thanks for the review. --PCB 03:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done all, I think. --PCB 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'll give it a day or so, re-read it and then give you any last comments needed, but I'm leaning toward support as well. Imzadi 1979 → 16:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up comments

I think some of these came from your copy editor, so I'm not faulting you at all.

1. From the lead: "the freeway was completed 3 years later" I think that the number should be spelled out.

    Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. From the history: "Two years later, another two-mile segment" needs its conversion inserted.

    Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. I'd swap some of the "segments" to "sections" or even "portions" for a little variety in the history.

    Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. "Bridges along westbound I-270 over Washington Street were replaced..." could use a "The" to start the sentence. Same with the next sentence. Add a "the" in front of "bridges".

    Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. "In February 2000, a connection between westbound I-270 and westbound US 36 was completed,[19] as was access between I-76 westbound and I-270 westbound, both of which were formerly not available.[1][20]" I'm not sold on that sentence. I'd split it up or reword it. It just sounds wrong.

    Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are a number of comments I have. –Fredddie™ 21:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

• The map has several issues.
  • The map has no background color at all.
  • The Ohio River is not shown.
  • The gray box around the zoomed out map is distracting; however, I may be swayed to not worry about this.
    • I have put in a request at the MTF to update the map. --AdmrBoltz 22:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map has been updated. --AdmrBoltz 02:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• West Virginia should be abbreviated (W. Va.) in the Major intersections section. Ohio is fine. I tend to follow the AP Stylebook when it comes to abbreviating state names.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• |states= and |counties= can be added.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should be added back. –Fredddie™ 00:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • These were added back by Dough. --AdmrBoltz 01:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Are the state highway links necessary?
  • On other articles (e.g. I-80 Bus. have them). --AdmrBoltz 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, but across the project it's inconsistent. –Fredddie™ 22:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps it should be discussed in more detail in another forum to see if we can find a consensus on the use of the browse box. --AdmrBoltz 22:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Could be 50% longer in two paragraphs.

Route description

• Belmont County should be linked since it's the first mention.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Doesn't Ohio use County Road instead of County Route?
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The highway curves to the southeast through woodlands, forming part of the northeastern corner of Neffs, paralleling then intersecting High Ridge Road, which to the north connects back to I-70, and provides access to Bellaire to the south." is awfully long. There should be a full stop after Neffs and a new sentence started. I wouldn't use present participles so much in either sentence, either. (forming → which forms, etc.)
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The freeway continues east through a valley..." I don't like through in this sentence. Was I-470 already in a valley, or did it descend into the valley?
  • Changed. --AdmrBoltz 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge carries I-470 over three rail lines straddling the western banks of the river, belonging to Norfolk Southern Railway and Wheeling and Lake Railway, the Ohio River,[2] and into developed South Wheeling, Ohio County and the state of West Virginia.[3]" is another long sentence. The way it reads, one of the rail lines belongs to the Ohio River. Maybe mention who owns the rail lines in a separate sentence. Ohio County should also be linked.
  • Broken up. --AdmrBoltz 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "...three-level diamond interchange with US 250 and West Virginia Route 2 (WV 2) provides access to downtown Wheeling..." Shouldn't there be a ", which" between (WV 2) and provides?
  • Whoops, yeah. Added. --AdmrBoltz 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You say "provides access" a lot, four times in the RD! In each paragraph, it's in consecutive sentences.
  • Yeah... Removed all but the one mentioned below. --AdmrBoltz 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "...the town of the same name..." I don't necessarily like this wording, but I don't have any alternatives that are any better. Hopefully somebody else will come up with something that works.
  • I am not quite sure what to do with this either... --AdmrBoltz 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

• Is there a yellow book map of I-470 plans? I know a number of auxiliary interstates have them, such as I-235.
  • Its linked in there, though I am switching the link out to the map on Commons, as the link returns a 403 Error like AA Roads has been from hotlinking... --AdmrBoltz 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was hoping this map could be added in. Move the picture that's in the history section to the RD. –Fredddie™
      • Added it myself. –Fredddie™
• Was the bridge built before the rest of the freeway? It's not exactly clear.
  • No, it was one of the last portions built. I have historic Ohio maps I can use as sources for the OH part, but I have nothing for WV... The OH maps are in MrSID form, which I can not work with here at work, so I will look into it when I get home. --AdmrBoltz 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire West Virginia section of I-470, including Ohio River bridge, shown as under construction on 1976 and 1980 WVDOH maps. Both shown as complete on 1983-1984 map. I don't have any maps from the period in-between (not sure if there even were any). Bitmapped (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Any specific reason why Ohio was out of money?
  • Not that I saw, but they just finished their last gap in their IHS in 2006... they seem to have chronic issues with funding. --AdmrBoltz 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't have any documented sources to back it up, but I would guess that Ohio not really getting any benefit from I-470 has a lot to do with its delays in funding as well. The route primarily benefits West Virginia by bypassing Wheeling Tunnel. Only real benefit to Ohio is it has a direct interchange with SR 7 versus having to drive city streets in Bridgeport to get to I-70. Bitmapped (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How large was the gas-tax increase?
  • Hrm... It seems in my moving sections around, the ref I am using has nothing to do with gas-tax increases... it was meant for the sentence before. Corrected references and  Done --AdmrBoltz 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• ''"...were solicited for in 1981, ..." For is redundant.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Odd that the source is in metric, but it is, so using metric first is correct. (just so others don't say it's wrong).
  • The NBI site provides all measurements in metric... one of the last remains of metrification I guess. --AdmrBoltz 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What was the other route that was a Wheeling Tunnel detour? Should mention it on I-70 WV if you haven't already.
  • Added. And it is in the Wheeling Tunnel article, and I think it is in the I-70 article as well. --AdmrBoltz 22:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exit list

• Both ends of the route can't be a westbound exit and eastbound entrance.
  • Whoops, got to love copy and paste :p  Done --AdmrBoltz 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The See also section is redundant to {{3di}}. –Fredddie™ 01:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. --AdmrBoltz 02:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I struck out the issues that have been fixed. The lead could still be a bit longer. A secondary issue to adding the yellow book map of Wheeling is that it makes the history section look short. –Fredddie™ 04:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added some from the older OH maps, and tweaked the lead. --AdmrBoltz 02:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:

1. The states field in the infobox seems a little redundant to the state browse underneath.+

   Removed the {{oh browse}} and {{wv browse}} links. --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The browse should be added back as it is essential. The |states=[[Ohio]], [[West Virginia]] is what needs to be removed. Dough4872 00:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --AdmrBoltz 00:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   This is now inconsistent among the articles at ACR! –Fredddie™ 01:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I added back the states entry myself. Dough4872 00:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. "The western terminus is at I-70 near Blaine, Ohio and the highway travels southeast over the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge then northeasterly to the Wheeling neighborhood of Elm Grove." This sentence should make a mention of where the eastern terminus of the route is. In addition, this should be split into two sentences describing the termini and then the progression of the route.

   Tweaked. --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Can a little more detail be added to the lead?

   Some added. My concern is that the lead should be a summary. I feel that it summarizes the article fairly well. --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. "The freeway parallels then intersects" needs to be reworded.

   Tweaked. --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. In the route description, can the abbreviation for US 40 be defined?

    Done --<font" color="black">AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   "National Road (U.S. Route 40 (US 40))" reads awkward, try "U.S. Route 40 (US 40, also known as the National Road)". Dough4872 00:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --AdmrBoltz 00:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Can a link for Bethlehem, West Virginia be added to the route description?

   Added, though will try to rework the sentence per Fredddie's concerns with it. --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. "the freeway terminates at an incomplete interchange with I-70 over Wheeling Creek.", can this be elaborated?

    Done --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. Is it possible to find the construction cost of the freeway?

   As per my comments on the I-70 in WV ACR, I do not live in WV and do not have access to their library system. I have dug what I can out of the Google News archives for the region, but as a 3di it is not nearly as detailed as the information that I had available for the construction of I-70. --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9. Is the date construction began on the WV part of the freeway known? Dough4872 23:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   No, see previous reply. --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   • West Virginia section is shown on 1976 WVDOH map as under construction. I don't have any older maps for comparison and WVDOH doesn't have data like this available online. Bitmapped (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Is it possible for this to be added to the article? Dough4872 01:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Bitmapped has added this information. --AdmrBoltz 20:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

1. Regarding images, you'll want to ping 25or6to4 (talk · contribs) to add the correct GIS source for the map, add color key, etc.

   Key added, 25or6to4 pinged. --AdmrBoltz 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. The other images check out, although File:Interstate 470.jpg could use geotagging.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 05:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. "Map of the Wheeling area with I-470 highlighted in red" would be a better caption for the map in the infobox.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 05:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. DABs good
5. ELs good
6. Could use some ALT text.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 05:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

1. "By 1983, motorists could travel the full length of the freeway" That sentence just seems poorly constructed. Can it be reworded?

    Done --AdmrBoltz 05:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. US 250 should be unabbreviated and the abbreviation put in parentheses. Unless I missed something, it's the first mention of a US Highway in the text.

   No, and I had US 40 unabbreviated in the end of the history...  Done --AdmrBoltz 05:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RD

1. First sentence could use a mention that you're talking about a location in Ohio, just for specificity.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. "An exit ramp to County Road 28 provides travelers ..." should insert the {CR 28) abbreviation here.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. "The freeway briefly parallels High Ridge Road (County Road 214) ..." abbreviate in the parentheses. (Additionally, add the road name to the line in the exit list table for continuity.)

    Done --AdmrBoltz 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Ping Dan and ask him if the "Ohio" is part of the "legal" name of state routes in the state. So long as the text is clear that you're still on the Ohio segment, if the state isn't part of the real name, then you don't need to repeat it in the text. That would remove a repetition with the state's name in the river name at the end of the sentence.

   Pinged. --AdmrBoltz 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Removed Ohio per Dan's comment on his talk page. --AdmrBoltz 22:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. "The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge carries I-470 over three rail lines straddling the western banks of the river, the Ohio River, and into developed South Wheeling, Ohio County and the state of West Virginia." Ok, well, I'm not sure I like "the river, the Ohio River" here. Reading that, I almost add emphasis to the name so it's "the river, the Ohio River, and into..." even though that's not what's intended.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. I'm tempted to say that in "The Ohio and West Virginia Departments of Transportation (ODOT and WVDOT)" the "departments of transportation" should be in lower case, just like "Marquette and Alger counties" has the common portion in lowercase. I'm not sure though. Looking at my AP Styleguide for some guidance, it agrees on the counties example (""Lowercase plural combinations: Westchester and Rockland counties"), but its plural example for government departments deals with two differently named units: "Lowercase department in plural uses, but capitalize the proper name element: the departments of Labor and Justice". Since the "transportation" name is common to both as well as the "department of" I'd drop the case on it as well, leaving only the states' names capitalized.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

1. "Yellow Book" should be put in italics as well, and I'd shift the link to the full title from the nickname. Actually, I'd drop the Yellow Book name unless you're going to mention the book again.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 05:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. "The West Virginia portion was under construction by 1976.[14] I-470 was completed by 1983 in both Ohio and West Virginia.[15][16]" I'd combine the two sentences, using fn 14 after the comma or semicolon that joins them. A second though would be to replace the states' names with "both states".

    Done --AdmrBoltz 05:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. "about 518 meters (1,699 ft) of roadway" just seems quite odd to me. I'd use the disp=flip parameter, setting abbr=on if needed to keep the two measurements abbreviated for consistency with the rest of the article. Yes, I know that your source is given in metric, but it's still an American article.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 05:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Footnote 3 should have the hyphen switched to an en dash, removing the spaces in between the two years of the title. I'd unlike JPEG. It's not really needed as an explanation, I don't think.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 04:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Fn 5 should have a hyphen in I-470 in the title. Since the title doesn't really describe what it is, is there a section of the WVDOT website that you can use in the work= field to offer some understanding? For listings of historic bridges from the MDOT website, I use "Historic Bridge Listing" as the work field for that reason.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 04:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Fn 9 needs fixing. I'd ditch the link to ajfroggie.com and use the url field to link to the inset directly.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 04:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Fn 10–11, double check that ODOT was called ODOT at that time. If not, switch the publisher to whatever the department was named at the time.

   "the Ohio Department of Highways officially became the Ohio Department of Transportation in September 1972" --AdmrBoltz 04:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Fn 18: "July/August" should be "July–August" with an en dash per MOS.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 04:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Fn 19 should have a location indicated since the city isn't part of the paper's name.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 04:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. For Fns 6 and 18, I'll try to pull the paper edition of the journal at the GRPL to get page numbers for you.

Overall, the article reads quite well. I can't find any glaring issues, just those minor formatting fixes. I agree though that I'd prefer some additional historical information from some dead-tree sources, but I think the article is fine in terms of content. Imzadi 1979 → 04:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Several sentences at the end of the lead to not link together very well. I'd suggesst a couple transitions.
  • I think they flow fine, howver the article will be sent to the Guild 'o Copy Editors before I send the article to FAC. --AdmrBoltz 05:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What do you mean by alternate western terminus? Are you implying that the route splits? I'd consider rewording that.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 05:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "to the south links Bellaire to the loop." Are you referring to High Ridge Road?
  • The loop refers to I-470. I would use freeway, however in the same sentence I refer to I-70, and that would be a more confusing pronoun. --AdmrBoltz 05:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Does the valley have a name?
  • If I had this info, it would be in the article already. --AdmrBoltz 05:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps mention the rail lines before mentioning the bridge.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 05:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you specify which rocks became overstressed? The rocks beneath the freeway? The rocks that could potentially fall on the freeway?
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 05:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a cost anywhere for the freeway? Was the freeway constructed from west to east? East to west?
  • If I had this info, it would be in the article already. --AdmrBoltz 05:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you need to capitalize "troubled" and "bridge in ref 12.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 05:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Otherwise, the article looks pretty good. I'll be ready to support the article when the issues are addressed. --PCB 05:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:

1. Is it possible for the lead to be reorganized to describe the route first, then discuss its history?

    Done --AdmrBoltz 00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. "The concurrent highways continue east through lightly populated Jackson County,", by lightly populated, what kind of physical surroundings does the route pass?

    Done --AdmrBoltz 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. "Just north of the airport is an interchange with 83rd Street, followed by an interchange with Woods Chapel Road", what airport is this?

    Done --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. "Lakewood Lakes passes to the west of the freeway as it travels north, while an interchange with Northeast Bowlin Road serves as an access road to Blue Springs Lake to the east", what is Lakewood Lakes?

   It is a lake. --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Can this be indicated more clearly in the article? From the way I read it, I could of confused it for a residential subdivision. Dough4872 00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --AdmrBoltz 20:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Overall, the route description lacks details on what physical surroundings the road passes. Based on the information given, I cannot tell whether it passes homes and business or rural areas.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. "The second was an addition to the cloverleaf at US 50 in Lee's Summit, with the addition of the access roads to Pryor Road and Northwest Blue Parkway.", addition is used here twice. Can one of the instances be changed?

    Done --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. Can some more details about the construction of I-470 be added to the history?
   1. The KC Star's archives are only avail from 91 forward, and Google News has nothing of use between '50-'80. I have old MoDOT maps, but the info you see in the article is what I gathered from the maps. --AdmrBoltz 20:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. "The north-south portion of the highway had existed since at least 1970 as US 71 Bypass,[1] and was renumbered to Route 291 between 1970 and 1971", was this a freeway-standard road?

    Done --AdmrBoltz 00:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9. "The remaining section of freeway, between US 50 and Route 291 was opened to traffic in 1983, completing the route", did this replace the aforementioned US 71 Bypass?

   US 71 BYP was absorbed into the highway. --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   This needs to be clarified in the article. Dough4872 00:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --AdmrBoltz 00:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10. In the exit list, the airport sign is not needed.

     Done --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11. Is it possible for a picture of the road to be added to the article? Dough4872 23:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not see a picture on Flickr that was already freely licensed. As Flickr is blocked from work I will look tonight to see if I have a (c) one that I can have the photographer relicense. --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of more concerns:

1. The sentence "US 40, which parallels I-70 through most of Missouri is the penultimate exit, serving the southern portions of Independence and Blue Springs before I-470 meets I-70 at a cloverleaf interchange, marking the end of I-470 southwest of the Independence Center mall" sounds awkward and probably needs to be split.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is the sentence "US 40 is named after Corporal Michael E. Webster, a Missouri State Highway Patrol officer who was killed in the line of duty by a drunk driver." really relevant to I-470. Dough4872 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   No, probably not, but as a reader, I would be interested in why US 40 was named the Cpl. ME Webster Memorial Pkwy. Also, when I had a coworker read through to make sure it made sense to a non road geek she enjoyed that tidbit. --AdmrBoltz 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: There might be some conflicts with Dough's review since they were done at the same time. Lead:

• I think the lead is a little out of order. The history section is also a bit underrepresented in the lead. Perhaps you should move the lead summary of the route description on top, and perhaps the history on the bottom. The structure now jumps between the route, the history, and the route, and the route description is first in the article.
  • Rearranged per Dough, but I will look at it again later. --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Route description:

• You've already established what the Grandview Triangle is so I think "named" is an awkward word to use.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "...travels east, before meeting...." There is either an extra comma or "before" is not necessary.
  • Removed. --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you specify what Lee's summit is? First time I read it I thought it was in a mountain range.
  • No. That's what the blue link is for. Anyways, people from MO will understand. --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What about the western Union Pacific Line? What happened to it?
  • UP chose to abandon it. It happens all the time. --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe mention the Lollapalooza music festival before mentioning Northeast Bowlin Road.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do you need to use the words penultimate and ultimate? It's not an extremely long freeway. You can keep them if you want but it makes the freeway sound very long, to reach its ultimate end point.
  • What wording would you suggest? It's better than repeating "the next" or "the following" interchange. --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, but are you supposed to link penultimate to Wiktionary? --PCB 00:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I do so that readers who are unfamiliar with the term, similar to how we link decommissioned. --AdmrBoltz 01:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History:

• "since at least 1970 as US 71 Bypass" sounds a little awkward. I think it's the "at least" that makes it sound strange. Either move the date to the beginning of the sentence, the reference to US 71 Bypass to the beginning of the sentence or reword "at least".
  • How is that awkward? --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "at least" referring to after 1970 or by 1970?

• Reworked. --AdmrBoltz 01:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think "remaining section" and "completing" is a little redundant. You already established that it's the last section of the highway, so you don't need to complete the route.
  • I removed "remaining section" but left in "completing". --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Instead of using "the first, the second, the third" perhaps you could use "the final", "the next", "the last", or phrases like those.
  • Why? --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, it's a little repetitive. --PCB 00:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed one use of "the first" but I only use the second and the third once each. --AdmrBoltz 06:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• First the beginning of the second paragraph stated that there were three new interchanges. But the second one wasn't new. It was only an addition. Maybe you could fix that in the topic sentence.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The last sentence of the second paragraph is a little vague. To me, it sounds like the opening of the interchange cost money, but it was really the construction that cost 18 million dollars.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Find a different word for collapse, there are 4 instances of the word or its form in the last paragraph.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps mention in the first sentence instead of implying in the second that it was the westbound lanes that collapsed.
  • "forced to close the westbound lanes of I-470" - how am I not mentioning the westbound lanes??? --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry–I didn't see that. --PCB 00:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ground water as in water on the ground or groundwater as in aquifers?
  • The article was not specific. --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a cost for the opening of the new bridge? (I predict the "If I had that it would already be in the article.")
  • You would be correct. --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other:

• Could you specify somewhere that View High Drive is on the border of Kansas City and Lee's Summit? --PCB 00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• One other issue I have; perhaps briefly mention the new interchanges and perhaps the collapse in the lead.--PCB 04:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 04:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was fast. :) --PCB 04:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]