Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 470 (Kansas)

Not promoted as stale over 6 months. --Rs chen 7754 19:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

Interstate 470 (Kansas) edit

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Seems to meet the criteria.

Nominated by: Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First comment occurred: 22:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Review by Scott5114

This would be an excellent companion piece for the Kansas Turnpike article, should you want to take it to FA. I have some photos of the I-470 portion of the turnpike I've been meaning to upload, so I can contribute those this evening.

As to the review:

~~Lead needs some expansion/restructuring. A good rule of thumb is one paragraph for each major section.~~ You might want to leave the AADT information out of the lead as it is more of a technical detail.
It might be interesting, if you can find the sources for it, to include a Design section comparing and contrasting the design of the free section of I-470 with that of the turnpike portion. For the latter you could probably crib sources from the turnpike article.
After an abbreviation is introduced, don't use the spelled-out version; in the lead, "U.S. Route 75" appears after the "US 75" abbreviation was noted. (This also happens with "I-470" versus "Interstate 470".) Likewise, both "US 75" and "US-75" are used; select one and stick with it (probably "US-75" since that is used by {{jct}}). ["US 75" still appears in the History section.]
From there, the highway heads generally northeast through southeastern Topeka until I-470 reaches its eastern terminus with I-70. It's easy to get lost in this sentence because of all of the directions. Try breaking it into two sentences.
~~It may be worthwhile to emphasize that the half-diamond interchanges are missing movements, since "half-diamond interchange" could be interpreted as an interchange type by a non-technical reader.~~
...making I-470 into a toll road. Well, it makes the eastern half into a toll road. Consider rephrasing.
The maintenance information in the final paragraph of the route description needs some work. We have lots of background on who KDOT is and what it does, but KTA is not mentioned at all. As it's worded here, the article is actually incorrect, since the Kansas Turnpike is a freeway. Remove the background information on KDOT and what AADT is (that information can be gleaned from the relevant articles if the reader needs it) ~~and add information about KTA.~~
Two sentences in this paragraph begin with As part of.... It would read better to restructure one of them to avoid repetition.
Since completion of the freeway, the route has not been changed. It retains its original routing. These sentences are redundant. They say the same thing.
~~Consider using RJL colors for consistency with other Kansas road articles.~~

All in all not a bad little article. Shouldn't be hard to spruce up. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've taken care of several of these; if you could go back through and mark which ones are done to your satisfaction that would help me know what else I need to do. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck through the issues that have been addressed. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've fixed the three things other than creating a design section. I don't know that there are plentiful enough sources for a design section, as sources for the non-turnpike portion of I-470 are quite scarce. I could maybe add a sentence or two to the route description, but a section would be unwarranted given the amount of sources available. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm not going to require a Design section; it would just be a nice-to-have if you are headed to FA. (Try contemporary Topeka newspaper articles?) I'm satisfied with the article as it is now, however. Support. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by TCN7JM edit

I'd like to review this article, but I didn't want to do it first. I'll review it after Scott's concerns are fixed, and if needed I can probably do either the image check or the spotcheck later on. T C N7JM 12:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess it's my turn.

Abbreviating all three Interstates in the lead after writing them out in full seems a bit redundant. After abbreviating (I-470), usually the rest of the Interstates can be used in either one form or the other, having both is unnecessary.
There's got to be a better way to word the sentence in the lead about I-470 becoming a part of the Kansas Turnpike so as to remove the redundancy in using "I-470" twice without using ambiguous pronouns, but it may require rewriting the whole sentence.
"...fall under the purview of the Kansas Turnpike Authority, who is responsible..." – This is incorrect, but I'm not sure which way it needs to be fixed. If KTA is being referred to as multiple people, "who are" should be used. However, if it's being referred to as one authority, "which is" should be used instead.

These are all of the concerns I have, and I am still open to doing the image review later. T C N7JM 18:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns seem to have been addressed. I will support this article's promotion to A-Class. Nice work. T C N7JM 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck by Rschen7754 edit

I can review this article afterwards. --Rs chen 7754 20:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to spotcheck per comments below. --Rs chen 7754 17:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Viridiscalculus edit

I will lay a claim to review number four (if we still do four reviews). V C 06:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We only do three now... I can switch to a spotcheck if you want, since I will probably be running a database check for this one and that lines up fairly well. --Rs chen 7754 06:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good. I have some comments written down already, but I will wait until Scott5114 and TCN7JM are done before I post them. V C 14:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have substantial concerns that need to be addressed before I will support this article being promoted.

Infobox

Unlink the second mention of Topeka after East end.
- Done. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency, abbreviate both transportation agencies.
- Both spelled out instead, but now they're consistent. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add an established date.
- Added as the date the highway was dedicated and opened to traffic. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

The names of the roads at each of the non-numbered-highway interchanges are not mentioned.
To be consistent, I suggest you remove mention of exit numbers from the first paragraph. You need to use exit numbers consistently, either at every interchange or no interchange.
- Fixed? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no mentions of number of lanes anywhere in the article.
Mention the configuration of every interchange. For most, it will just be "this is a diamond interchange" or "this is a trumpet interchange."
Elaborate on the complex interchanges. For instance, instead of just saying "US-75 splits away from I-470 at a complex interchange with Burlingame Road", explain how the interchange is complex. Mention the flyover ramps.

History

The History is broad but not comprehensive. It begs a lot of questions that need to be answered before this will be viable at FAC.
Several of the interchanges have changed since the highway opened. There needs to be more details on the western I-70 interchange, the eastern I-70 interchange, the US 75 flyover ramps, and possibly the Kansas Turnpike/Topeka Boulevard interchange.
When was US 75 placed on I-470 west of the Turnpike?
There is no mention of the former service area within the eastern I-70 interchange.
Was I-335 planned as a Topeka Interstate in the 1950s? According to the Kansas Turnpike article, I-335 was assigned merely to allow a higher speed limit along what had been an unnumbered segment of the Turnpike.
The quotes around the memorial highway designation are not necessary. This applies to the Lead, too.

Exit list

"Exit 182 is a part of the Kansas Turnpike and uses its mileposts, as do all other Interstates signed on the turnpike." Instead of refering to Exit 182, say that the exit numbers on the Kansas Turnpike portion of I-470 follow the Turnpike's mileposts.

Done. Philroc (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest including the I-70 exit number of the western terminus in the notes for that row. Also, expand KC or rewrite the statement about exit 1A. You may wish to split the interchange into two rows.
For the interchanges that are pairs of half-diamonds, you should indicate a mileage for each half of the diamond. You can place both in the mile column.
For Exit 6, the mileage should be to two decimal places.
For the last exit, "182 & 183" looks strange. I suggest only including 182 because there is no exit 183 from I-470. You should indicate in the notes that it is Kansas Turnpike Exit 183 coming from the east.
In fact, you might want to split the eastern terminus entry because there is almost a mile between Exit 182 and where I-470 merges into I-70.
The Notes field for the last exit is not WP:MOS compliant. Splitting the eastern terminus entry would solve the problem that you use a jct template that produces shields that pop up within prose and abbreviations that should be expanded.
The West end of toll road row in the table is not necessary. That should be mentioned in the notes for the I-335 interchange.

Done. Philroc (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Instead of linking to the KDOT historical maps page, link to the individual maps.
Do you have authors for the newspaper articles?
This may not be necessary, but you may wish to update the mileage source or any other references that are not using the most up-to-date editions.

General

Use the link checker tool to avoid overlinking in the prose. Just from scanning the article, I see there are two links to I-70 in the Route description.
Would it be possible to get some photos of I-470? Scott5114 mentioned he took some a while back. No more than one or two are necessary because this is a short article.

I typically do a second run-through after most or all of the issues have been addressed, so I may have more comments later. V C 23:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Philroc: Please let the reviewer strike items out, and please let the nominator decide whether to fix an issue. It may be that the reviewer decides that something was not fixed to his satisfaction, or that the nominator decides that making that fix would be counterproductive. Either way, that's not something for you to decide. --Rs chen 7754 19:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to inactivity, this review has been suspended. The nominator has 5 6 months from this posting to reactivate the nomination and address the issues before this review is automatically failed. --Rs chen 7754 04:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.