Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kansas Turnpike

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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

[edit] Kansas Turnpike

Because the old nomination had no outstanding objections, and per user:SPUI's request, I'm renominating this (previous FAC). Raul654 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support- Personally, I believe that it fits the criteria. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. What a freakin' article. It's not the most exciting topic in the world (to me, at least), but it's very well done. Fantastic job. JHMM13 05:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Don't see any problems meeting the criteria. Manderiko 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Warhol13 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: In "early history" the paragraph on funding could be improved, and in the next paragraph, "After considering..." doesn't have a subject. Perhaps use a synonym to avoid "... travellers travelled..."? When talking about the speed limits, it says 80 was fixed, then the next sentence says it "would not be enforced anywhere again until..." I was confused - was 80 changed at some point? Might be nice to wikilink "trumpet" once in each subsection of interchanges - the link is at the start of the section but this might be easier on readers. Gimmetrow 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The sentence "After considering a number of different alignments, including one bypassing Topeka via the present route of I-35, an "airline" route was chosen between Wichita and Topeka" does have a subject, "route" (see italics above). I've clarified the speed limit section and fixed "travellers travelled". Trumpet links have been added. I'll have to think about ways to improve the funding paragraph. —Scott5114↗ 20:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • NE2 has further revised that sentence. —Scott5114↗ 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support About time USRD gets another featured article, but ultimately, this article is ready.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Map has no context. Maybe it might be better to show the entire state and/or to add labels for major cities. Also, I think it might be useful to add an exit table (or put a prominent link to an existing one at the top of each subsection of the Interchanges section). --Polaron | Talk 22:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a more detailed map with city names in the Routing section. Also, it did once have an exit table, but was converted to the interchange section, which provides more detail than just a flat table.—Scott5114↗ 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That second map you're referring to is useful only once one knows the context. The map in the infobox is still useless. At the very least the entire state of Kansas and parts of neighboring states should be shown. A featured article is aimed at a general and global audience. Something similar to what Ridge Route currently has with the entire US shown might even be more useful here. In terms of the exit table, I personally find having to read through lots of text cumbersome. Tables make it easier to just quickly pick up the key points. A "See also" link to exit tables in the Interstate articles is probably sufficient for this purpose. It is a well-written article and deserves to be featured but at a minimum the map needs to show more context. Exit tables are not critical. --Polaron | Talk 15:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • A map showing the entire USA has been added. —Scott5114↗ 09:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, great article, with terrific sources. It is also well written as well with good pictures too. -- J-A10 ^{T · C} 2:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The lead looks a thin to me. The prose length should put the lead at about two - three paragraphs. Morphh ^(talk) 4:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, fails 1c, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be used to reference another article—Wiki articles are used numerous times as sources. Numerous sources indicate no publishers, and references are not consistently formatted. See WP:CITE/ES, or the cite templates for examples of how to format references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The references to the email on the wikipedia talk page are a problem. Refs to National Bridge Inventory should perhaps have an explanatory text saying "a database available at xyz.org". Gimmetrow 01:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, just found a reference to a Usenet post, not a reliable source: Ben Prusia, New East Topeka, KS Turnpike Exits Open Today SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • All refs use the cite templates. This was addressed in the other FA. The email is from the Kansas Turnpike Authority -- if KTA isn't a reliable source, then what is? No wiki articles are used as sources. I'll see what I can do about the Usenet post. —Scott5114↗ 05:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I think what User:SandyGeorgia could be referring to are the links in the references to Wiki pages (the maps, etc). In our defense, those aren't articles, they are images attributed and sourced. But I am not that user, so I cannot say what they mean. --MPD ^{T / C} 05:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I have to agree with MPD here. I don't see any reason why referencing an uploaded picture is a problem. Unlike a Wikipedia article, an uploaded file is effectively static. Raul654 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Also don't see a problem with a link to an image. Gimmetrow 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • [ec] Usenet post replaced by a KDOT press release. I'll see what I can do about replacing the KTA email, but finding that kind of information is difficult at best. —Scott5114↗ 05:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The links to Wiki images are problematic for the following reasons:

1. We should directly attribute our sources, not link to Wiki which *then* links to another source that needs to be evaluated for reliability. As an example, the second referenced image in the article is to an image that comes from http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/ so that site should be listed as the source.
2. Reliability of sources for images; for example, what is ajfroggie.com—is that a reliable source for this info?
3. ajfroggie is public domain ?

Terraserver-usa.com should be identified as publisher on maps, and there is a blue-linked reference that should be expanded ( http://www.route56.com/photobrowse.cgi?photo=10112 ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If the image is being cited to support some fact, then the source of the image could be given along with a link to the image. In general, if an image were being displayed in the article, it would need to be hosted on en or commons, and the source information would normally be on the image description page. How is this really different if the image is linked in a footnote? The authenticity of such an image is a separate issue, and would be the same issue whether it was displayed or linked. Gimmetrow 22:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I think it now satisfies the FA criteria. --Polaron | Talk 16:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.