Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 15 in Arizona

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 21:25, 13 May 2008.

[edit] Interstate 15 in Arizona

Self nominator - I started improving and expanding this article after it had already achieved GA status. I believe it now meets all the criteria of a featured article and submit it now for community opinion. Holderca1 talk 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support I made a few very minor edits for wikilinks and clarification. Otherwise, a well-written article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I have reviewed the article at the ACR level and it was excellent. (For transparency reasons I disclose that I did start the article; however, it was very different back then [1]. I did eventually nominate the article for GA but was not involved at all in getting it above the start-class level.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • It seems to me that road FAs should mention the control city in each direction for various stretches. I just learned the term, and find it interesting and relevant. I would think the finest articles on roads would include this information.
    • As usual, I wish I could look and see more shields. In this case with the prominence of blue shaded roads either shields or a visible legend would probably make the map more usable. I admit the shade of blue might be a little light for some to confuse it with rivers, but many still will. With shields or a visible legend this would be less of a problem. Of course,. I am not a road expert, but find the articles interesting and useful and wish I could encourage a different standard than that which seems to prevail.
    • Which properly cited sentences refer to the scenic section of the road. I seem to be missing them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • When I look at the second sentence of the Mohave County paragraph, I wonder if a typical traveler on this road is heading to Grand Canyon National Park, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, or Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument and if any of the exits is a primary route to any of them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The two nearest control cities on the official FHWA list are Las Vegas and Salt Lake City. There are no control cities actually within Arizona for I-15. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The article mentions Vegas and Salt Lake, but there aren't even any cities along the stretch in Arizona, much less a control city.
      • The map is being used to show the location of the highway in Arizona and not as a navigational aid to a traveler. Even if the other highways were shielded, they wouldn't be very helpful since I-15 doesn't connect to any of them.
      • Are you asking about which sentences describe how its scenic (there are a few that cite reference 6) or sentences that use the word scenic (near the end of the history section)?
      • The only destination that is primarily accessed is the Virgin River Gorge Recreational Area. None of the ones you mentioned are primarily accessed from I-15 in Arizona.
        --Holderca1 talk 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The main image here and the main images in the three tourist attractions that I mentioned suggest that from some directions it should be part of the main route because no other near roads are shielded. For example, it would seem that if I wanted to go Grand Canyon National Park from Los Angeles I would travel I-15 in AZ although I would not exit from I-15. Of course, you need WP:RSs for this thought. I guess it might not belong in the article if that is the case. However, for such a short stretch it might make sense to say that although there are no major tourist attractions in the segment, that the route is commonly used by eastbound visitors to the GCNP who exit I-15 in UT at exit XX z miles east of the border. Also, this route is a segment of the most commonly traveled driving route from almost anywhere in the Midwest to almost anywhere in Southern California. I don't want to mess up standards that would cause 5000 articles to have to be rewritten if I am way offbase, but that seems to be a sensible statement for this article based on a quick test of maps.google.com. Of course, it might not be WP:ATT to anything that would pass WP:RS.
        • Is there a better term than pulloff? rest area? scenic area?
        • Are there links for port of entry and weigh station.
        • I don't see detail about the most expensive interstate in the text.
        • Please bold article title and its variants in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I see what you are getting at this section of highway is definitely used as a through route for destinations beyond both ends of the stretch in Arizona. For example, for someone to go from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles, they would travel on this stretch, my only problem is that may be better placed in the main Interstate 15 article. Lake Mead National Recreation Area should definitely be mentioned in the Interstate 15 in Nevada article, but would it be appropriate here? I'm not sure.
          • Looking at satelite photos of the area and these pulloffs appear to be nothing more than an extra wide shoulder to allow drivers to safely pull over without fear of opening their car door and getting run over by a truck. Rest area and scenic area both imply to me as an area off the highway, but separate from the highway. The source uses "pullouts", but I am not sure if that is any better than pulloff.
          • Weigh station was already linked and I added a link for port of entry.
          • The last sentence of the history section mentions how much per mile the Interstate cost. Are there particular details that you want to see?
          • Per MOS:BOLD and WP:LEAD, descriptive titles shouldn't be bolded. --Holderca1 talk 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  • This photo caption "An uncommon sight - cliffs sheathed in clouds" could be considered POV. I know that it's well known in the U.S. that Arizona receives very little rain, but nowhere in the article source or discuss that clouds are rare in this area.Dave (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Comments Good work - the prose is professional, it is well-sourced, with only some minor fixes required. Licensing of images reviewed/verified.
    • Pardon my ignorance, but does the title imply that this highway is not named I-15 outside of Arizona, or it ends outside of AZ, or you are only discussing the AZ portion of it? I can't say the lead makes it clear which is the case.
    • "In the U.S. state of Arizona, Interstate 15 (I-15) is an Interstate Highway that passes through Mohave County in the far northwest corner of the state." Odd start.. can you say, "Interstate 15 (I-15) is an Interstate Highway that passes through Mohave County in the far northwest corner of the Arizona."? It feels like you went out of your way to say you are talking about an Arizona highway but it doesn't flow well.
    • "The highway has been signed and designated the Veterans Memorial Highway..." Why not "The highway is signed..."?
    • "... were routed via the northerly routing ..." Can we reword this? Routed via routing...
    • "When the Interstates were planned, the decision was made to save 12 miles (19 km) over US 91..." Make active voice and specify who made the decision.
    • "To help expedite the construction of the portion of the segment through the gorge..." Can you eliminate either "the portion" or "the segment"? They sound like the same thing.
    • "The highway is of little importance to the transportation needs of Arizona since it does not link any Arizona communities..." Does your Arizona Daily Sun source back this up? I can't verify because the issue is so old. At any rate, I think it's dangerous to make a statement that the highway is not important to AZ and source it to a 36-year-old source. What they said in 1972 may not be true now.
      • Perhaps a good way to confirm this is to cite the current population of Littlefield (the only town along the freeway). Would that suffice?Dave (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The article is short.. have you contacted a few other editors at the Roads project to make sure you haven't missed any significant sources? --Laser brain (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • One thing that I see missing in the article is the traffic data, I.E. How many people use this freeway. I dont' know if Arizona makes this data public, but both Utah and Nevada have the "AADT" data on their DOT websites. I think using the first counter in Utah and Nevada would suffice, if the AZ data is not available. Dave (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I believe I have addressed most of your comments. Regarding your seventh comment, the Arizona Daily Sun source does back this up. Although the source is 35 years old, it is no less accurate today in this regard than it was when it was published. There are no census-designated places along the route. The only community, Littlefield, is a part of the 86432 zip code which has a population of 1,053. The highway doesn't connect with any other Arizona state highway and someone in Phoenix, Tucson or Flagstaff would have to travel through Nevada or Utah to drive on this highway. As far as your last comment, the article did go through the Wikiproject's A-Class review process. I have added traffic volumes per Dave's comment. --Holderca1 talk 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article size is too small; the map needs work as well. Dabbydabby (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Support Dabbydabby (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:WIAFA; there is no length requirement for a featured article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • For a completely rural highway less than 30 miles long, I think the length is adequate. If you feel something is missing, let me know. Also, could you be more specific about the map? --Holderca1 talk 00:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Map is not in SVG. Also, the map should zoom-in on I-15 in Arizona. Dabbydabby (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Uh, maps do not have to be in SVG - read WP:USRD/MTF. Please become more familiar with Wikipedia and USRD standards before opposing on an FAC - it is evident that you do not know these standards. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
        • In some situations I would agree with you, but there aren't any details that would be revealed by zooming in on this particular highway. There are no cities or state highways along the route. What details do you feel are being missed by not zooming in further? --Holderca1 talk 12:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support My concerns above were all addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

-.-' Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 12:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what this means. --Holderca1 talk 12:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Sources look good. As I'm on the road still, I didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - Holderca1, I apologize for the piecemeal review I've done, I've had a lot of disruptions this week. I see one more issue with this article (last one I promise). The main article Interstate 15 mentions the Arizona portion is part of the CANAMEX Corridor yet this article doesn't touch the subject. That should be fixed IMO.Dave (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Holderca1 talk 20:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Support — well written. No obvious issues jump out at me. Everything looks well sourced to RSs so I can't oppose at this time. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved on talk, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Fine description of an interesting segment of the Interstate highway system. The edits and tweaks have addressed the minor issues raised by others and I see nothing further needing to be changed in order to qualify for FA status. Glane23 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.