Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 470 (Ohio–West Virginia)/archive1

Add links
From 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 10:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Interstate 470 (Ohio–West Virginia)[edit]

Interstate 470 (Ohio–West Virginia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): AdmrBoltz 17:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coming off the recent promotion of Interstate 70 in West Virginia I present the only auxiliary Interstate Highway in West Virginia — I-470. This article also passed A-Class review several years ago and was previously copy edited by the GoCE, just like I-70. I did ask for a Peer Review first, but it sat and was never picked up. AdmrBoltz 17:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Having stumbled here from my FAC, I had to stop by and comment, having read the article before. It's decent, but probably could've benefited from the peer review. That being said, most of my comments are fairly minor, and I would be happy to support with just a few tweaks.

  • In the opening sentence, it should be "that", not "which"
  • Also in the opener, the rule of the MOS is that you should spell out the first instance of units. You do this for mile, but not for km.
  • "The western terminus of I-470 is at an interchange with I-70 in Richland Township, Ohio." - just wondering, but is the "at" necessary here? The western terminus is the interchange, right?
  • The directions in the opening lead paragraph seem a bit misleading, specifically how the map doesn't look like it goes very northeasterly.
  • I'm just curious, but considering how short the main article is, why does Interstate 470 Bridge have its own article? It seems like a perfectly logical merger, especially since that is a stub and is one of the biggest components of I-470.
    • This is not something that has been done before on any other Interstate or bridge article that I am aware of. --AdmrBoltz 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice, nowhere in the article does it say the road is in the United States. You might want to mention that somewhere for international readers.
  • "the highway turns northeast, towards the Wheeling communities of Bethlehem and Elm Grove and its eastern terminus at I-70 near Elm Grove." - why the comma?
  • "Construction of the freeway began in 1975 in the two states but due to a chronic lack of funding" - if you remove the comma from the above one, place it here after "states"
  • "was thought to be the most complex interchange" - thought to be, or considered? If the latter, say who said this.
  • "passing Belmont Memorial Park and through woodlands" - awkward grammar construct. Right now, the "passing" should have parallelism between both subsequent entities, but you have [place] and you have [through place]. I'd recommend adding a preposition before Belmont, such as "near" for better parallelism.
  • "links Bellaire to the loop" - what loop?
    • Changed to bypass. Its I-470. --AdmrBoltz 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I-470 continues east" - given that "east" is a noun, you need either a preposition phrase ("to the") or make it "eastward".
  • "before a trumpet interchange with State Route 7 (SR 7) along the western banks of the Ohio River." - add a verb between "before" and "a trumpet"
  • Who published "General Location of National System of Interstate Highways Including All Additional Routes at Urban Areas"?
  • " (equivalent to $95.3 million in 2011) - it's 2014
    • The inflation template only has data until 2011 for non Consumer Price items. Construction costs can't be accurately measured using consumer price indicies. --AdmrBoltz 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A two and one-half-mile-long (4.0 km)" - since you have the km written as "4.0", the mileage should also be in number form. "2.5 mi" looks so much cleaner.
  • "Ohio had completed the stretch of highway between I-70 to just before the SR 7 interchange by 1976; but due to budget deficiencies work did not resume in Ohio until 1981." - don't use semicolon here, since the portion after the semicolon can't be its own sentence.
  • "St. Anthony's Chapel in West Virginia had to be demolished to make way for construction of the interstate." - any significance of this? Is this the only building that was destroyed? Where was it located? Was it historical?
    • Its probably fluff at this point. I have removed it. --AdmrBoltz 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 1,699 ft" - you say about, but then you have an extremely precise measurement here :P
    • Rounded the figure. Its a bit odd since the source was in meters, and I am using the |disp=flip paramater. --AdmrBoltz 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " causing motorists who wished to travel through on I-70 to detour. The two detour routes were city streets in downtown Wheeling and the I-470 loop." - this could be written simpler.
    • This was the suggested wording from my previous FAC which had the same sentence in it. --AdmrBoltz 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then West Virginia governor, Cecil Underwood, issued a proclamation on the 59th anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor, naming I-470 in West Virginia the USS West Virginia Memorial Highway." - when was this?

All in all, the article is decent, but there are several problems right now. Let me know if you have any questions! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Changes have been made. --AdmrBoltz 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That all works. I noticed one other thing. With regards to the fourth paragraph of history, it has "roadway" twice in the same sentence, so removing the redundancy would be nice. As far as the bridge merger, I just thought that it should be addressed before this would become featured, considering it has some of the same info. I'm going ahead and proposing a merger myself, since it shouldn't directly affect the FAC much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant word removed. I still oppose the merger. --AdmrBoltz 19:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per first look at prose. "However" is a bad sign. I will review more fully later. --John (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • However has been removed. --AdmrBoltz 20:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @John: I have removed however and done some light copyediting. Would you be able to review this now? --AdmrBoltz 15:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've taken a hack at the prose myself. I don't like seeing Google Maps used as a source; are there no better sources for these claims? --John (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @John: Thank you. I have removed two of the Google Maps references. The one left in the Route Description needs to be there since neither the ODOT or the WVDOH map shows a bridge linking the two states. The second instance of Google Maps is in the exit list. WVDOH does not publish mileage logs on their website like most normal DOTs do, thus I have to rely on Google Maps for mileage. --AdmrBoltz 13:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Plenty of other FAs use Google Maps for citation purposes, usually in concert with official DOT paper maps. For instance, there are 21 FAs on highways and major roadways in Michigan that use the satellite view on GMaps to cite the landscape when paired with the paper map. Such usages have been deemed acceptable, so I hope this isn't a knee-jerk reaction to the presence of the website in the footnotes. Imzadi 1979 → 00:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @John: there is one other Google Maps reference, but that is how the Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway chooses to display their system map. --AdmrBoltz 17:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The WVDOT GIS data doesn't have the information directly (the most obvious, bridges, doesn't work because CR 91/1 crosses over I-470), but take a look at the guardrails file: the side guardrails under that bridge stretch from 2.147 to 2.173 and 2.164 to 2.190. Still nothing useful for US 250 due to it being part of the Ohio River bridge. But if you take the eastbound side of I-470 and measure its length (calculate new field, expression '$length') you get 6351 m, which is 3.946 miles, very close to the 3.94 figure given by FHWA and the 'EMP' (end milepost) field. Finally split the way at the center of US 250 and recalculate, giving 860.7 m (0.53 mi). I'd round to 0.5 since if you go to two decimal places the endpoint becomes 3.95, not 3.94. --NE2 09:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now support on prose. Thanks for the work you have done on this fine, though short, article. --John (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • GBooks links don't need retrieval dates. Also, the one in FN4 is pointing to page 22, but the cite is to page 14
    • Fixed both. FN4 now points to page 14. --AdmrBoltz 16:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN29: is this a range or a single page? If the former, should use endash; if the latter, "p." not "pp." Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a single page. Corrected formatting. --AdmrBoltz 16:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plans for a southern bypass of Wheeling were first published in 1955 in a document published by the Bureau of Public Roads" - apart from the awkward repetition of 'published', the source doesn't support that these were the first plans. Have you read the 1972 EIS? Often these have details on the history of planning that can be useful in the article. --NE2 08:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tweaked the sentence. As far as the 1972 EIS, if I had access to it, I would review it, however as stated in my I-70 review and in the ACR for this article I have very limited access to West Virginia sources as I live in Utah, my library databases don't cover a lot of WV topics. --AdmrBoltz 13:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You still claim that plans were first published in the Yellow Book, when we don't actually know that.
      • As far as the EIS, I'm going to oppose, since by not using what could be a major source, the article is not "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". --NE2 14:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only EIS I see in WorldCat is OCLC 29461905 which doesn't seem to be the EIS you are referring to, nor is it the complete EIS. I also doubt I can get it through an ILL in time for any sort of meaningful review.
        • The Ohio County Library system doesn't seem to have anything listed for I-470 EIS, nor does my local library, West Virginia Northern Community College, Appalachian College Association (Wheeling Jesuit University), West Liberty University (near Wheeling), West Virginia State University, West Virginia University... need I go on? --AdmrBoltz 14:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just a comment, but does NE2 have anything more than speculation that said EIS contains information that would dispute or discount the information present in the article? His comments above say "often they have", which isn't an unqualified "they have". In my experience, EISs have limited utility. They're good for details on controversial roadways, which is the type of roadway that will garner a lot of press attention. Ultimately it will be up to the delegates to resolve this, but as it stands, the article is well researched. Imzadi 1979 → 21:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Where did I speculate that it contains "information that would dispute or discount the information present in the article"? The EIS is going to have information that would add to the article, for example in the purpose and need (or whatever they called it back then): http://books.google.com/books?id=sLM2AQAAMAAJ&q=traffic http://books.google.com/books?id=sLM2AQAAMAAJ&q=%22interstate+highway+system%22 --NE2 21:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'd have to agree that the EIS is a bit of a crapshoot - sometimes it has useful stuff, sometimes it doesn't. But opposing on the off chance that it might have information that is relevant to the article (besides meaningless statistics that wouldn't be included anyway) is a bit problematic in my opinion. --Rschen7754 00:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Additional sources comment

I found one small formatting error: Ref 13, page range format requires ndash not hyphen. Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --AdmrBoltz 00:02, 16 February 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_470_(Ohio–West_Virginia)/archive1&oldid=1136097080"