Talk:Indiana State Road 930/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 07:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to this review. Should be exciting; I've never helped with a road article before, but it's always been a subject I've found interesting. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Just to clarify up front, some suggestions below may exceed the requirements of the GA criteria. They will be offered in the spirit of making the article "good" even if they aren't needed to make it "Good". Complying with them will not be needed for promotion as a GA, but they are still offered as suggestions to improve the article.

To start off, the disambiguation and external links check out with the toolbox links above.

Hey, no problem ;) Anyone who knows me as an editor in my normal subject area (video games and consoles, especially Sega) knows I always love a review that goes over and above, and makes the article the best it can be. I always love a challenge. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
See below for a few specific comments about the references.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
See below for a query related to the history.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Good here.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
This is rarely an issue on road articles.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
One thing though: while the licensing and captions are appropriate, the sources used to produce the map should be added. I would ping Detcin to ask him to update the file description page. (I linked his name so hopefully he'll see this here.)
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall, the article is good, but some things need to be fixed before it can be promoted. Imzadi 1979 → 05:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The 12.97 miles (20.87 km) of SR 930 that lie within Indiana serve as a major conduit." This isn't stated in the body of the article.
- Not sure there's enough to really say that, anyway. I've reworked it to mention it's a conduit between the two concurrencies of US 30 with the interstate highways, and removed "major" as an unnecessary qualifier. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"SR 930 was first designated as a state road in 1990s." Actually, per the history, it wasn't first designated as a state road in 1998, it was first created a state road in 1917. The SR 930 designation itself was created in 1998.
- I believe this too is a misnomer, as this would have been its designation as 930. I've reworked it to say that SR 930 was designated in 1998. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The highway replaced the U.S. Route 30 (US 30) designation of the highway which dated back to the 1950s." First, 1920s, right? Second it replaced the designation in the Fort Wayne area" or "between the freeways in the Fort Wayne area". Otherwise, it implies all of US 30 was replaced.
- Fixed. The misnomer here, again, is because some length of the highway did replace sections of US 30 and Lincoln Highway back that far, but it also replaced the Coliseum Boulevard bypass, which was designated in the 1950s, and that is a good part of its length. I've reworded this misleading statement to make mention of the actual facts. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the relative length of the two paragraphs, compared with the length of the article, I would just merge them together after the issues above are corrected.
- Agreed. This has been condensed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

"signal track rail line" shouldn't that be "single-track rail line"?
- Fixed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"before coming to a traffic light at and Crescent Avenue" I think that has an extra word in there.
- Removed the "and". Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"East of Crescent Avenue, the road enters mainly residential areas of town, until the route begins to curve due south between Hobson Road and Vance Avenue." I think the second comma is an error, and the ending should be revised a bit
- Removed the comma and also reworded the ending a bit. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The route has a traffic light at Lincoln Highway and SR 930 heads southeast, bypassing downtown New Haven." This needs a comma before the "and" because everything after the conjunction is a complete sentence on its own.
- Done. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The entire length of SR 930 is included as a part of the National Highway System (NHS),[6] a network of highways that are identified as being most important for the economy, mobility and defense of the nation." is wrong. The original source does not say "most important". The source says that "The National Highway System consists of roadways important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility."
- "Most" removed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History

"SR 930's concurrency with Goshen Road in Fort Wayne", I don't think that is a good way to word it. First, it's not a "concurrency" with a named road as concurrencies typically are understood to exist only between numbered highway designations. Second, SR 930 didn't exist in 1913, so we have to be careful about how we refer to predecessor roads like this. I'd reword this something like, "These sections include the segment of Goshen Road in Fort Wayne now used by SR 930..." and "the section of what is now SR 930 between Maumee Road and Lincoln Highway in New Haven."
- I've used your wording. Thanks. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, US 24 was concurrent with US 30 from Washington Boulevard in Fort Wayne, and Lincoln Highway in New Haven.[12][13][14]" A pair of issues there. That second comma isn't correct. Second, it looks back to have three footnotes at the end of the sentence. I think at least one of those can be moved to follow the preceding sentence. Otherwise, I'd suggest seeing if you can't insert some of those notes into the middle of the sentence. Three footnotes at the end just sends up a red flag to some people about the sentence.
- Fixed both issues. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the route that is concurrent with Coliseum Boulevard was built" again, highways aren't thought of as being concurrent with roadways like that. They'll follow a named street, but they aren't concurrent with the street name. It's a minor semantic difference, but it just reads wrong in the form used by the article's text.
- Reworded. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This led to INDOT commissioning the route as SR 930" would read better as "This led INDOT to commission the route as SR 930."
- Used your wording. Thanks. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any pertinent changes related to US 30's route through Fort Wayne between 1926 and 1998 that should be listed here? M-553 (Michigan highway), for instance, lists the reroutings of its predecessor CR 553. If US 30 was rerouted through the area before then, it really should be noted as it does affect what is the modern routing of SR 930. The answer here determines if the article meets criterion 3 above.
- The only real pertinent change is that in the '50s, US 30 was rerouted to bypass Fort Wayne along Coliseum Boulevard, which is now a good portion of 930. At the time, it really was a bypass around the city; urban sprawl, though, has really changed that. I'll rewrite that to make it more clear in the article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major intersections

Are I-69, US 24, US 30 and US 33 all concurrent there? Personally, I'd break that mass up a bit, even if they are, to use separate lines for the different directions. One line for the northbound freeway, one line for the southbound freeway and a third line for the continuation of the roadway that carries SR 930. Then in the notes, a "Roadway continues as X" with X replaced by the appropriate information (no shields).
- Actually, yes, they are. I-69 and I-469 are full of concurrencies around Fort Wayne; in fact, until US 24 was rerouted this year around the north side of Fort Wayne, all of I-469 was concurrent with either US 24 or US 30, including a short wrong-way concurrency with US 24 West and US 30 East (along I-469 South). I think in total, US 24, US 30, and US 33 are all routed around Fort Wayne, Indiana 1 and Indiana 3 stop short of the city and pick up on the opposite side... you get my drift. I think US 27 would probably also go around if it hadn't been terminated at I-69 in the 90s.
In the third line of the table, I would use a second line for the continuation.

I'm having trouble trying to follow what you're looking for here with the table reformatting. Can you help me out here a bit? I get the drift of some of the changes you're suggesting, but I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to by using separate lines for different directions, etc. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Footnote 1 should have the newspaper name listed. Also, an accessdate should probably be added so that all online sources consistently have them.
- Fixed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the sources that are maps, ideally a scale should be added (per the various citation schemes used in my college classes. a "Scale not given" can be added for paper or PDF maps lacking a specific scale, and online maps with variable scales can just omit it.) Also, if the map has a letter–number grid, those sections should be indicated just as we prefer page number references in book citations. Cartographers should be listed too.
- This'll be a tough one for a few of these, especially since I didn't provide the book sources. I'm not sure how much of a deal breaker this will be, but I'll do what I can with the PDF ones later. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the publisher has been linked on a previous footnote, like the FHWA is linked in FN6, it shouldn't be relinked in another footnote like FN12.
- Delinked. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get working on this right away. The only work I've really done to this article was a brief copyedit, having identified its quality and unfortunate lack of polish, but I'm pretty sure I can get it cleaned up and above and beyond standards. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: Sorry to trouble you, I know you're busy, but this has been on hold for some time now. Would you be willing to look again? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I applied some tweaks to polish up some details. With that done, there are still some avenues of improvement related to the citations if this article moves up the assessment scale. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]