Talk:Interstate 82/Archive 1

Cleanup tag

The new exit list does not come close to meeting exit list standards. I also removed the two extra "headline text" section headers. Please make use of the preview button when editing, rather than making a series of "broken" edits. -- NORTH ^talk 21:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm thick, but isn't it already listed west to east? It's not our fault a primarily north/south freeway is considered to be westbound and eastbound. Travisl 23:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

When the article was tagged, the exit list was written in the wrong order (see here). That was fixed without updating the tag. The current version is in the correct order, but still doesn't quite meet ELG standards. -- NORTH ^talk 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes

Does this section have anything to do with the subject of this article? The first sentence refers to two exit numbers - the rest refers to locations nowhere near I-82 such as Federal Way, SR-520 and I-5.Gr8white 05:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reassesment

I expanded the article and improved major parts of the article (for example the lead and RD). This article meets the expectations of B-Class. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 01:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS

Interstate-Guide.com is part of AARoads, which is not a reliable source. This will make your GA status very hard, you will need to replace all instances of this website. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Done ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 15:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to find AADT info on WSDOT's site... its one big PDF file, and if you can find it, put back in the section with the AADT info for the other highways, it was interesting. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WSDOT AADT info --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 16:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I readded the Washington traffic data with the WSDOT source. I need to find an ODOT source soon... ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 18:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite complete iffy I-82 AADT data from ODOT --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 20:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I added it, along with the other Interstates. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 21:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite

There are several references that do not use {{cite web}} or another cite template, I would suggest making your citation style consistent. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Done - I added citation templates. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 22:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There are still four with out cite templates. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 16:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

<ref name="FHWA log"> <ref name=log> <ref name=inventory> <ref>[[United States Department of Agriculture]]. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 16:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Done ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 16:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 82/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Can we get images?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

GA Criterion 2

• Merge the map references into one ref, and reuse it.
• McNary Highway #70 - Cite?
• The original designation for I-84 was I-80N, but was renumbered in 1980 as part of a mandate to eliminate suffixed routes. - Cite?
• the longest concrete arch in North America, spanning 549 feet (167 m) long across the creek. - Cite?

I added references to all of these. Also, it turns out that the Fred Redmon Bridge was the longest concrete arch in North America at the time of it's opening.[1] So I fixed it. I found some referneces from ODOT for McNary Highway 70, and found a Utah Department of Transporation reference for I-84 (got it from Interstate 84 (west) page). ~~ ĈĠ890100^{Review me!} 17:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Factual accuracy issue: I am fairly certain this freeway is not busier than US 26 or OR217 in the Portland area, so is the line supposed to be fifth busiest interstate? I'm not sure how the numbers were calculated from the PDFs used as references, otherwise I would fix it myself. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You're right! I'll change it to the fifth busiest Interstate. ~~ ĈĠ890100^{Review me!} 14:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Second GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Not bad, but I'm still spotting some areas for improvement.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The list of proposed extensions in the History section should be turned into prose. Under WP:MOSBOLD, wikilinks should never be in bold. Some of the bolded terms should not be in bold as they don't redirect to this article. Also that list should not have bold in it.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Is there a way to link directly to the WA laws cited instead of including the whole text of the section as the citation. Shouldn't the infobox also have the law link like other WA highways as well?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   In addition to the above issues, the infobox should have the browser moved up, and the maintenance links added. I'd also suggest the map_notes being added to the infobox as well. Let me know when these issues are corrected so I can remove my objections as the second opinion review.

Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I finished all of these corrections, unbolded links, made list of proposed route into paragraph, changed refs in History section to link, put rcw link in infobox, and added map_notes. ~~ ĈĠ (☺ - Review!) ^Simple? 23:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Objections corrected. I'll clear it for passage from my end. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So, are you going to pass this GA, or should I get Admrboltz? ~~ ĈĠ (☺ - Review!) ^Simple? 00:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't unilaterally pass it. I believe he has to come back and see that his issues are cleared too. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Passing. --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USRD GA audit

This article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 82/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

• Fails criterion 3 - seems really short, signaling that it may not discuss the main aspects of the topic adequately.
• (Most of) The AADT details are unnecessary for the article, failing criterion 3b.
• There is way too much citing. I saw several sentences with three citations. There was even one with four - in the lead, which typically doesn't have any citations at all. Other USRD editors find ways to avoid that. It makes the article look messy, and borders on a WP:SYNTH violation.
• A route description of just over 2 paragraphs for ~124 miles doesn't look good either.
• The {{expand}} on the article is a quick-fail criterion as well.
• Combine the Google Maps citations - your divisions for that are arbitrary.
• "Sinks, James. "Eastern Oregon waits for new highway". The Bulletin (The Bulletin)." - date?

I'm putting the article on hold for seven days before delisting it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with most of the above feedback, some of these issues are over and above the Good Article Criteria, that should be the basis of the review. As such, I think some points should be rephrased as feedback for further improvement. IMO, the two most important issues brought up are the fixit tag at the top of the article, and the sourcing of non-controversial details in the lead, as these are violations of the linked policies. Regarding the AADT point, I agree that the AADT data in this article is overkill. I usually just list the most traveled and maybe the least traveled sections. However, I don't see how one could say that AADT data is unnecessary to a highway article. I think that was phrased incorrectly.Dave (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been a week with none of these issues addressed. Therefore, I am going to demote the article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation link generated by template.

The table on this page contains a link to the disambiguation page, Washington. Can someone who understands this template please correct this link? bd2412 T 14:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412:  Done. It's part of the {{WAint}} templates, not the top. SounderBruce 15:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it was driving me nuts. bd2412 T 15:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)