Talk:Interstate 440 (North Carolina)

Verifiable source for the truncation?

I would say there is circumstantial evidence starting to show for NCDOT's plans to truncate I-440:

• New signage on US 1 North approaching I-40 does not show I-440 Outer multiplexed with I-40 East; I-440 East is multiplexed with US 1 on the pullthrough.
• The first roadside sign on US 1 South approaching exit 1B-A has a black covering obscuring the I-440 shield, though the shield is visible on the remaining signs, including a free-standing shield on a post with a directional arrow pointing up the ramp.

Gribble Nation is the cited source for the truncation, but that's a little removed from the official literature for me to be comfortable. A Google News search hasn't turned up anything.

Has anybody seen a NCDOT press release, etc. to support the truncation? —C.Fred (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I havn't seen anything official, but I did find a mention on AA Roads. He usually cites things well, but this was just a post on Yahoo Groups that is now unavailable. Other than that, I couldn't find anything either. And what's with the new +/- numbers on the Watchlist? I haven't seen anything explaining that yet. --MPD (T / C) 06:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Observation of the behaviour has told me it's the number of characters added/deleted from an article in the most recent revision. That's very handy for blank-the-page vandalism, if you see a large negative number. It's a slick little add; I'm finding it useful, especially since I watch my Watchlist like a hawk for changes. :) —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And there's now a little "What do the colored numbers mean?" link at the top of the watchlist page, too. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The only main reference that all the big websites you mentioned comes from a News and Observer article from August 27, 2002 (proof as souce http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i440.html#fn at Kurmi). The article is entitled "Beltline drivers will get new directions.", but since it's so old, newsobserver.com doesn't seem to have it online. So, the source is there, but you'll have to go digging through the hardcopy archives to find the original text. --TinMan 20:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Kurumi also referense the FHWA route log. That's another angle to take, if that's searchable online. —C.Fred (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Which it is. I'll be updating the article shortly, most likely. —C.Fred (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that shows 16 miles of I-440 which is a truncation from the whole loop. Now, I just wonder if there will still be "Inner and Outer" designations on signs anywhere else... the whole loop is still is a beltline. I know for I-485, many signs include East/West/North/South along with Inner/Outer. --TinMan 03:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

History

I'd suggest one of the first things to improve about this article would be the history section which includes the date of 1960 and then pole-vaults to 1991. For instance, this article discusses the lower beltline in 1982 and 1984. That would still leave sizable gaps to either side, but would help. --98.69.170.188 (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the pole-vault is because the designation didn't happen till 1991. However, I am fine with the idea to add history of the freeway before the designation; it should probably be header separated to identify it before I-440. The lower-half was at one time apart of I-440, but it's also part of I-40; it probably should be included, but not in any dedicated way since it later loses designation. --WashuOtaku (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In the 1967 Rand McNally Road Atlas, US 1 is shown as 2-lane limited access from Moncure to US 64. What is now the Beltline picks up at that point. According to the map, it is signed as US 1/64 from that point to North Blvd. (now Capital Blvd.), and US 64 from there to New Bern Ave., where it terminates.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 440 (North Carolina)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fredddie (talk · contribs) 04:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are too many simple MoS violations (<month> of <year>, seasons, capitalized directions, among others).

   Some poor word choices as well. "At Wake Forest Road, I-440 uses a diamond interchange..." No it doesn't, cars on the road do.

   You have a tendency to use abbreviations without defining them first. And then you're inconsistent.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Your references have inconsistent date formats, which is another MoS violation. Otherwise they look generally fine.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article is in sore need of some wikilink love, especially the second half of the prose. It's fine to link to articles more than once. There is an article for ASR, but I'll let you find it.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Some minor disagreements among editors, but nothing major.

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold. I will give the standard seven day waiting period 14 days before I give a thumbs up or down on this article. I have two pieces of advice for the nominator. Please take some time to learn some of the nuances of the WP:MOS. Some of the issues I listed above are basic. Also, in the future, I urge you to have a member of the WP:GoCE give articles a once-over before bringing it here. If this were a higher level of review, I would have had a lengthy list of fixes. –Fredddie™ 04:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fredddie: Thanks for reviewing and I will work on it. However could I maybe get 14 days as I will not have internet access starting sunday. Thanks--Ncchild (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for communicating. –Fredddie™ 21:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fredddie: So I have worked on some of the errors that were pointed out, most notably wording in the Rd and abbreviations. Also Imazdi has helped out a lot with MOS violations which was the other big problem here. As far as ref dates I don't really see an inconsistency so if you could point that out to me that would be great!--Ncchild (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The dates were fixed with this edit. For the future, you might want to check out this script, which will fix dates with one click. I will look over what's been done. –Fredddie™ 21:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ncchild: are you still working on the article or have you completed changes regarding my concerns? –Fredddie™ 00:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fredddie: I believe that most of the changes were fixed. However I may be wrong--Ncchild (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you should give the article another look. –Fredddie™ 00:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright--Ncchild (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fredddie: I had another look at the article and fixed some further items. After that, I'm lost on what needs to be done.--Ncchild (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fredddie:

Like your previous GANs, I could give you a long list of things to fix and then pass the article. However, it doesn't seem like you've learned anything from them. There are still MoS errors that I listed above that were not fixed. So, like I suggested before, have someone from the WP:GoCE look over the article and try again in a couple weeks. I am not passing the article today. –Fredddie™ 11:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I have completed a copyedit of this article through the GOCE. It should be free of MOS-related problems. I encourage a renomination. Ping me if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2016 (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.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 440 (North Carolina)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 01:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I am Reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   There is a clarification needed maintenance template on this article. The issues it raises will need to be dealt with. Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

    Done --Jayron32 19:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The following references are problematic:

   • Ref #35 is dead.

   Took care of #35. It appears stories that old from the N&O are archived behind a paywall. Since URLs are not required for paper sources anyways, I just removed it. --Jayron32 19:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

   • Refs #8 & #9 (both unc.edu) - I am not sure what entire maps of the NC highways prove? Please hep me understand this referencing. Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

   I looked at the maps and the statements they are referencing. These are official NC State Highway Maps that show the routing of the state highway system. Both of those maps show the progress of the construction of I-440, which can be confirmed by looking at the area around Raleigh, where the progress of the road is clearly visible. It looks fine by me, reliable maps are perfectly legit sources for stuff like this, we have a {{cite map}} template and Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles for guidance. If there is a more specific issue I can fix, I'd be glad to. --Jayron32 19:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Jayron32: Thanks for the fixes. Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Jayron32: Ah ok, now that all makes sense - thanks for your explanation.

   This is a fine point/personal thought and not necessary as part of the GA criteria: For someone who comes to the subject matter and this article not knowing much about it (like, say, me, or any reader unfamiliar with WP articles on Interstate highways etc), could a note/explanation re [what these maps prove] be added to the ref? Otherwise folks will make the same mistake I did - not understanding why these big maps of the entire highway system in 1961 and 1963 are being used as references... Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

   Normally, any decent map citation should include the grid section(s) or inset that's being cited, just as we should never omit the page number within a book that contains the cited information. Now, if the map lacks sections, we can't include that detail in the citation. I will note that a pair of map citations, showing the before and after conditions connected to a change is a standard practice used on hundreds of highway articles, including several dozen featured articles. Imzadi 1979 → 22:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

   Heh, I just admit my ignorance, having hardly worked on any road articles in the course of my WP-editing journey. Always glad to learn new things, thanks for the info. Shearonink (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool, no issues found. Shearonink (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Straightforward article about a straightforward subject. Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit warring found. Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The referencing issues should be fixed. Shearonink (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

   This Review will be finished pending one last deep/proofreading readthrough. The above concern re: the highway maps (Refs # 8 & 9) is a going-forward/possible improvement outside the GA Review criteria. Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

   Much thanks to the recent editing help I've gotten in the course of this GA Review. Greatly appreciated User:Jayron32 & User:Fnlayson. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2017 (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.

I-87 to overlap last couple of miles of I-440

See here. --Jayron32 19:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Interstate 440 (North Carolina)

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.

---

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

Result: Kept. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This article has a more citations needed template, and the problem has to be fixed. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@NoobThreePointOh: that template applies to a single {{cn}} tag at the end of the lead for content that is cited in the body of the article. Every paragraph of body text is cited. At worst, there needed to be a minor update to shift the text about upcoming work to into the history and provide and update because it's been delayed to a 2025 completion. I've made those updates and removed the improper templates. It took my just a few minutes to do, and that makes this review nomination moot. Imzadi 1979 → 02:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979 Okay, I guess I'll remove this then. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2024 (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.