Talk:Interstate 65 in Tennessee

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 65 in Tennessee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 16:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bneu2013, I'm going to pick this review up. I tend to make minor copyedits as I go, so please review those and revert any you don't agree with. Otherwise I'll ping you when I've finished. Thanks! grungaloo (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi again Bneu2013, I'm finished. This is a strong article, just a few suggestions for making it a bit easier to understand for general readers. Let me know if you have any questions, otherwise ping me once you're done! grungaloo (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2024 (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):

   Section layout is good. Some clarity issues, glosses should be added for general readers. Prose is good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Ref section exists. One source (Clarksville online) flagged as marginally reliable, but only used to cite a date of opening so it's fine. Earwing didn't find any copyvios. Spotcheck was good, no OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage, good amount of detail

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Meets NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No stability issues

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

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

   Good images, appropriately licensed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Refs 1,3,7,8,9,13,18,20,82 all good

• I-65 enters Tennessee from Alabama concurrent with U.S. Route 31 - Quickly explain "concurrency" in brackets for readers here since it's used quite a bit throughout. Something like (two roads that run alongside each other).
  • I've linked concurrency (road), something I had forgotten to do. As such, I don't see the need to provide a short description of what a concurrency is. I also don't know of any other road articles that do this. I've gone ahead and reworded it to say "running concurrently with US 31" and rearranged the sentence, as I didn't like the previous wording structure. Please let me know what you think. Bneu2013 (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Immediately is an interchange with SR 50, - Immediately what? Immediately after entering Maury County? Try rewording this so that Maury County is in the same sentence as immediately to make that clear.
  •  Done
• Bypassing Columbia to the east, I-65 crosses the Duck River a few miles later and has an interchange with SR 99 and the eastern terminus of US 412 after some distance - Do the SR 99 interchange and US 412 terminus occur at the same time? Could reword to make that clearer. Also, "after some distance" is probably not needed.
  •  Fixed - yes this is one interchange. The SR 99 designation continues as a hidden component designation to US 412. US 412 was also added many years after the interchange opened; originally it was just SR 99. I honestly can't think of a good way to reword this at this time; if you have any suggestions, please let me know. I also cut the "a few miles later" instead, since the river crossing is actually closer to the SR 50 interchange than the US 412/SR 99 one.
• and the HOV restrictions terminate - I would say "end" rather than "terminate" for simplicity. Personal style though, so not a GA requirement.
  •  Done
• The remainder of this stretch was let between February and September 1961 - "was let between", add a definition in brackets for what you mean here since it's used elsewhere. Alternatively, you could replace "let" with "built" or "constructed".
  • "Let" simply means a contract was awarded; it doesn't mean construction began. That usually happens a few weeks or months after contracts are awarded. I have used the verb "contracted" in the past, but some people object to this because it sounds like someone it contracting a disease. I replaced some of the other uses of "let" with other verbs. Bneu2013 (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Traffic studies had shown higher volumes and congestion on the eastern leg, and this action was undertaken to reduce this traffic and divert through traffic on I-65 onto the section that carried less traffic - Traffic is used four times in this sentence, any chance it could be simplified?
  •  Done - I also reworded some other repetitive phrasing. Please let me know what you think of my change. Bneu2013 (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grungaloo: - I've responded to all of your comments so far. I thought I might should let you know about a few things. First of all, I corrected an incorrect opening date that I had intended to do months ago, but forgot. I also plan to go search through some of the state newspaper archives at some point to see if I can get some more precise opening dates for a few of the sections. None of the big state newspapers with archives online appear to have covered this. I had also originally just listed the section completion dates when I first nominated for GA, but after giving it some serious consideration, figured that this highway section is short enough that we could also include the dates that construction began, or the first contracts were let, for each section. Contrast this with Interstate 40 in Tennessee (an FA), for example, which is simply too long to include this information. I thought I might let you know that there are a few sections I have yet to find letting dates for, but I'm still working on it. I don't want this to delay the progress of this review. Also, for some reason, I've had a problem with real estate and other advertisements clogging up the newspaper searches for this road probably more than any other I have worked on. As such, it has been extremely difficult to find sources about the history of I-65 in Tennessee. Bneu2013 (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Changes look good! I think your idea is good too. I think the article as it stands already meets GA, so I'm going to promote it even without those other changes you're proposing. Congrats! grungaloo (talk) 01:00, 6 March 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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The first section of Interstate Highway in Tennessee

• ... that the first section of Interstate Highway in Tennessee was a section of Interstate 65 opened on November 15, 1958? Source:
  • Reviewed:

Created by Bneu2013 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Interstate 65 in Tennessee; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• The hook does not meet the interestingness criterion as it is not likely to be perceived as interesting or unusual to a non-specialist audience. Merely saying that something opened on a particular date is not really hooky. I'd suggest proposing additional hooks instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry I've been slow to respond. I'll try to come up with a suggested change later today. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Update, Narutolovehinata5, the subject of my proposed hook was the fact that this was the first section of Interstate Highway opened in Tennessee, not the date it opened. I've seen similar hooks like this before. However, I can propose some tweaks. How about "...that the first section of Interstate Highway in Tennessee was a section of Interstate 65 near the Alabama state line?". Or "...that the first section of Interstate Highway in Tennessee was a section of Interstate 65 near the Alabama state line, opened in 1958?". Alternatively I could do "...that Interstate 65 was the first Interstate Highway in Tennessee to open?" However, that could be mistaken as implying that I-65 was the first Interstate Highways in Tennessee to be completed, which is not true. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

So I guess something like this then?

ALT1 ... that a section of Interstate 65 was the first part of the Interstate Highway System to open in Tennessee?

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, however I'd only bluelink "Interstate 65", as well as link Interstate Highway System. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• That's fair. Asking for a new reviewer to give this a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• ALT1 is confirmed and in the article. I guess it could be mildly interesting. The article was made a good article on March 6 and nominated the same day so it qualifies. In the credits the nominator said it was created but it should say improved to Good Article. The nominator has 11 nominations but I do not see a QPQ offered here (it was supposed to be done within 7 days per WP:QPQ) so that needs to be done before I can approve. I do not find evidence of plagiarism (Earwig >5%) and the article uses the correct inline citations. The article is neutral. Regarding the image, it has been uploaded by the nominator with a free license tag and I see that it comes from a book which was prepared by D.W. Moulton Commissioner of the Department of Highways and Public Works of the State of Tennessee. It is not the work of a Federal employee so I am unsure about using it on the main page. I do not see a copyright notice on the book so I could be wrong. It is ok for a promotor to look at the license and come to a different conclusion about the image. Bruxton (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I will supply a QPQ to speed thing along. The nominator has 11 nominations so one is required.  Removed The nominator has not been editing since April 4 and today is April 9. Bruxton (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 and Bruxton: - I strongly apologize, but I have not been as active lately as I had hoped. That being said, I will do a QPQ now for this one and another pending nomination I have. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Update - Here is my QPQ. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I had already donated a QPQ. but since you added one, I just took it back Bruxton (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

References