Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Interstate 155 (Illinois)/1

Interstate 155 (Illinois) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No action. Improvements have been made to broaden the coverage of the article. Although further improvements are welcome, there's no longer a clear case for delisting. Geometry guy 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article mainly talks about the history of I-155. The problem is, that's just about all it talks about, failing the "broad coverage" criteria of GA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prose needs some cleanup; a little more could be added. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The route description definitely needs to be expanded to include more detailed information about roads the Interstate interchanges with. It currently includes less detail than I would write for the description in the lead of a Good Article. Dough4872 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~ per above. I particularly second Dough's comments; the three sentences in the route description section are what I would expect to see in the lead summarizing that section. Three sentences does not broad coverage make. -- Kacie Jane (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to need a bit more before it moves any further up the assessment ladder (IMHO), but the newly expanded section is enough for me to support keeping it listed. Information like "Surrounded mostly by prime land used for farming soybeans and corn" is precisely the sort of thing that sets the upper echelon of road articles from the cruft at the bottom. -- Kacie Jane (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If only that statement was cited. :-) Actually, most Interstates that run through the northern 2/3rds of Illinois are surrounded mostly by prime farmland, so it'd be better to find a more unique property of the highway to play up. —Rob (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~. It appears to be very narrow in scope, focusing on history and including little other information. Majoreditor (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new material on the route description addresses my concerns on scope. I suggest closing this as no action taken. Majoreditor (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two paragraphs to the Route Description section. —Rob (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no one wishes to make a case that the article is still not broad after the recent expansion of the route description, I will close this as no action. Geometry guy 19:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]