Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Chickasaw Turnpike
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Chickasaw Turnpike (5 net support votes)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of this discussion is Promote to A-Class. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Chickasaw Turnpike (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: Working on eventually bringing all the Oklahoma turnpikes up to FA status. This is my first victim, and it just passed GA today. Comments appreciated on bringing this up to meet the criteria.
- Nominated by: —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
- The references in the route description need a good tune-up. From the way it appears to me, the last three sentences of the first paragraph are unreferenced. There's also two consecutive sentences attributed to the same source (reference 2); if they are from the same source, just place a single reference following the second sentence. The same issue is present in the second paragraph: two consecutive sentences are attributed to reference 1.
- The mileage and establishment date in the infobox are unreferenced. Also, the length in miles goes to one decimal but its metric conversion does not.
- In the infobox, the termini routes are to be abbreviated per the last revision of INNA; I have no idea why this part of INNA was removed when it was merged to the standards page.
- The counties in the infobox should be wikilinked.
- "The Chickasaw cost nearly US$44 million to build" - how much is that in 2007 dollars? Also, per WP:$: "The exception to [fully identifing a currency on its first appearance] is in articles related entirely to the US and the UK, in which the first occurrence may also be shortened and not linked ($34 and £22, respectively), unless this would be unclear." My interpretation of this is that the "US$" is unnecessary, but it's not a big deal if it remains.
- Tolls section: delink 2008 per MOS:SYL.
- Exit list: why is "Westbound exit and eastbound entrance" and its vice versa counterpart two rows down bolded? Also, the inconsistent precision of the mileposts is slightly jarring, but I've seen the length reference and I'm aware that's all the precision that's given for the two intermediary exits. Consider that last point a "comment" more than a "problem", as I won't oppose over it in this instance since there's not much that can be done.
- Reference 12 (web link) needs an access date. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 11:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Fixed all. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support. Not a jaw-dropping article like I-70 in UT but it appears to meet the A-Class criteria. I can't think of anything else this article would need to be complete. – TMF 03:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a few comments for now:
- In the exit list, the first and last entry have Westbound terminus and Eastbound terminus in the notes section. Is that saying those are the termini of SH 7 or SH 1 or is that talking about the Turnpike itself? If it is talking about the turnpike, then it contradicts the infobox which says it has a southern and northern terminus.
- The map doesn't really clue me in on where this highway is, can we have a map that is zoomed out a bit?
- You state in the first sentence that it is located in Oklahoma so you don't need to mention it following the cities in the second sentence.
- "Partial interchange" is a redlink, looking at a map, it looks like half of a diamond interchange, so perhaps change "partial interchange" to "partial diamond interchange"?
That's it for now. --Holderca1 talk 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Fixed all except the map, which I'll have sometime this week, as soon as I can get around to beating QGIS into submission. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- QGIS decided it wants to output blank images now, so I'm afraid I cannot fix this issue. Sorry. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- User:25or6to4 provided a map, so all your concerns have been addressed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, here are a few more comments:
- You have one source for the distance in the infobox and a different one for the distance in the lead, any particular reason why?
- After the first use of "Oklahoma Turnpike Authority" and "Oklahoma Department of Transportation," put their acronyms in parantheses.
- That's it. --Holderca1 talk 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Fixed all. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-
Support The comments below are not show-stoppers, but I'll keep them. Also Thanks TMF for the kind words =-) Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Neither of these are show-stoppers, so I won't vote no if you disposition them as "no".
- What is the likelihood that Bobby Green will have an article someday? consider de-wikilink if no other key figures of ODOT have articles.
- The ELG is missing the milage figure for the toll booth. I suspect this is because all attempts at a reliable figure have failed.
Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Gary Ridley has one, and I'd like all former ODOT directors to have one someday, but that day is fairly far off in the future, I'd reckon. I'm not sure what I could do for the tollbooth mileage; I know of no source that has it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Two things:
- While I realize it may be a tad repetitive, I'd like to see the major junctions in the infobox say "US 177 north of Sulphur" or something like that. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other route that has junctions listed in the infobox without cities.
- Same issue every A-Class review has (:-P)... the prose says "U.S. 177", while the templates in the junction list say "US-177". Choose one convention and run with it.
For some strange reason, as minor as it is, that first bullet point really irks me, but just know that I'm really close to supporting it as is. Well-referenced, well-written. Good job. :-) -- Kéiryn talk 10:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Fixed all. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. Like TMF, this article doesn't really jump out at me and say wow!, but to my eyes, everything's been done that needs to be done. -- Kéiryn talk 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
