Jump to content

Talk:Interstate 90/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Washington Mileage

I wonder if anyone can tell me how I-90 is 297.52 miles long in the State of Washington, yet I live between mile marker 296 and 299? I would think that means that I-90 is at least 299 miles long. Brian Sayrs 23:48, 4 November 2002 (UTC)

I believe the markers start at "2", to reflect the possibility that they may one day extend I-90 all of the way to the Seattle waterfront (it currently stops a couple of miles shy of that). At least, I'm pretty sure the I-5 exit in downtown Seattle is exit 2 -- RobLa — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobLa (talk • contribs) 05:11, 5 November 2002 (UTC)

Originally it was to end at the Alaskan Way Viaduct (SR 99). In fact, in driving the Viaduct, you can see the rampwork that allows for a connection to a freeway. Obviously this was decades before either the Kingdome or the actual I-90 was built. Nonetheless, Royal Brougham and Atlantic were to eventually become the ramps to the Viaduct. I believe those plans have been cancelled, and instead the terminus will be 1st Ave S., about 500 feet east. Half of this work is already done, and the other half will be completed over the next few years. -- User:Cpk1971 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpk1971 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 19 July 2004 (UTC)

I-495

I-495 intersects I-90 in Massachusetts but the article doesn't reflect that. 68.160.162.89 21:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  • The articles on Interstate highways typically only list intersections with two digit highways, although a few intersections with three digit highways sometimes sneak into the list. If anything, the intersections with I-390 and I-490 in New York should be deleted. -- Ithacagorges 22:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Map

I'm not the best with images. I tried to move the map of where I-90 is to a place where it wouldn't overlap the following chart on my browser (Firefox). I achieved that, but it's still not aesthetically pleasing. Jacqui ★ 06:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Scenery

Does anyone have pictures they can add showing some of I-90's dramatic Western scenery? Some possibilities:

-Great plains/distant Badlands, South Dakota

-Wolf Mountains, Wyoming/Montana border

-Columbia River gorge and causeway, central Washington state

-Distant Mt. Rainier, Central WA (westbound)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mileage in Wisconsin

Every interstate-related website, including this one and the Federal Highway Administration Route Log, seems to list the I-90 mileage in Wisconsin as 108.61 miles. This is the distance from the Minnesota state line to the I-39 junction (exit 108 of I-90 and exit 84 of I-39). But what about the remaining 84 miles along I-39 from Portage to the Illinois state line? The numbers do add up correctly to 3,020.54 miles, which is the number quoted everywhere for the total length - so what happened to those 84 miles?! Mtford 07:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Erected...

"It was erected in the 1950s...." Was it really neccesary to link "erected" to the article for Erection? I went ahead and removed it, but if someone truly believes that that link should be there, then go ahead and revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.198.251 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Event appears to be non-notable

I didn't do the original blanking, but I will rv to the version without this sentence:

On November 6, 2005 a major rockslide near Snoqualmie Pass caused the highway to be temporarily reduced to one lane in each direction.

This event doesn't appear to be notable in either severity or aftereffects. As a specific event, this is not notable; if it is generalized and becomes a description of the character of this stretch of highway, I could accept that. But I don't know if this applies, either. —Rob (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well they're considering rerouting I-90 to the other side of the lake because of this. I'd leave it in. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Notes section

Why does the "notes" section list the states in alphabetical order? To me, it makes far more sense to go either east to west, or west to east. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

They don't technically have to be, as I can't find a policy that states it either way, but as long as it is done consistantly throughout other pages, it should be no problem. Feel free to reorder it. In my opinion, W->E and S->N is most logical? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox map

Which map looks better: or ? I want to see what others think before I replace one map with the other. --TMF T - C 20:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The second image looks better in my opinion, with less contrasting lines that would otherwise clutter a map. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree the second image is cleaner Jeepday 03:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Lost States

Four states were missing from the middle of I-90; Wyoming, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin. I put them in with some very basic text. I will try to get back soon and add more. Jeepday 04:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

length

Couldn't find where to change the length in km in the box at the right but 3099 mi are 4958 km as it is stated correctly in the other table with the length in each state...--X-Weinzar 20:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

long distance mileage sign

I-95 at the I-85 junction in central Virginia

Possible spam in Montana description

Do we really need to know that the "Historic Montana Bar & Grill" and "InnTheMiddleOfNowhere.com" are within the Montana section? This sounds like spam. Instead, should we remove such entries and instead describe geographic locations and major towns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.140.182 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Berkshire Spur not made part of I-90?

Just curious really. It would make following I-90 much easier. Rather than a left-exit at 24, a toll plaza, a section that runs nearly perfectly north-south, then another toll plaza, and another ramp. Why not continue it down concurrently with the Thruway/I-87, exit at 21A, and run it straight through on the Berkshire Spur? I don't think it would be prudent to rename it now, as that would require way too many new signs and would leave a question as to what to call Freebie 90 , but I would like to know what reason, if any, was given for not doing that in the first place. Also, the article says the section was built in the '50s, but I have a Department of Commerce map from 1960 that shows all the crossings of the Hudson between Coxsackie, NY and Troy, NY, and it doesn't show the Patroon Island Bridge, nor anything in its place, which now carries that part of I-90. --Kedalfax 02:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox junctions

While I would agree that all the extraneous interstate junctions would not belong, I would strongly suggest that the I-80 junctions DO belong, as I-80 is a major E-W interstate that I-90 intersects with (on both ends -- in Indiana and Ohio) --Mhking 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The thing is, at the west end, it also junctions I-94, which is not major. Still, I am leaning towards adding the I-80 junctions. I'm not doing it yet, since there isn't enough consensus. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Better question IMHO is why aren't the I-80 junctions present. Let's check the guidelines:
  1. For a long interstate, only list 2di junctions.
Sounds good. I-80 has two digits last time I checked.
  1. For any interstate that is long enough to have 8 or more 2di junctions, such as I-80, I-90, I-40, I-10, I-75, and I-95, only list 2di junctions where the number ends in 5 or 0.
Sounds good again. I-80 ends in a zero last time I checked.
My stance: add both endpoints of the I-80/I-90 concurrency as the two junctions do belong in this infobox. Even if both are added, this infobox will have only 10 junctions - right at the limit. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I-90's interchange with I-79 is a major interchange as it is the major highway to Pittsburgh, so I think 79 should be added to the Infobox junction. --Write On 1983 03:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Major is defined as "ending in 0 or 5", not traffic volume or importance. Otherwise there would be many, many more junctions to add. —Rob (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Is this a Wiki rule? I've never heard this before and I'm very familiar with the road system. --Write On 1983 01:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. By that standard we should pull I-29, I-39, and I-87 from the list of major junctions, and add I-95 back in. It seems kind of silly that we not add I-94 in too, because that highway might as well have become a 0 or 5 2di given how long it is. --Ecarrel (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
IIRC, I-95 is listed in terminus, so it doesn't need to be mentioned again. WP:USRD/INNA has the standards for this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Currently listed as terminus is Route 1-A. This is correct ever since the TWT opened. There is no other mention of I-95, except as part of the major junctions section near the bottom. I'm not really picky either way, but if we're going to be obstinate about the rules, we might as well be consistent. --Ecarrel 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Longest What?

"Interstate 90 (abbreviated I-90) is the longest interstate highway in both the United States and world" Should "and world" be in there? Isn't it kind of pointless as the system is USA only? Maybe it is the longest limited access highway, but I don't know. This should be changed. --Kalmia 01:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We were having a discussion on SABRE [[1]] (in Britain) a few days back, and we think I-90 could be the longest divided highway in the world. However, I came across a website claiming there is a significant gap or gaps in the median near the MT/ID border - is this true? Sunil, Cambridge, England 131.111.36.48 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Supposedly that was fixed early in this decade, however it was in the '90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liddlebigguy (talk • contribs) 02:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Topology

I came here trying to find out how much the topology of the I90 through Washington state resembles either the Coquihalla or the Crow through the mountainous BC interior. Travel times from Tsawwassen to Cranbrook are roughly equivalent on all three routes (plus/minus border crossings), but some vehicles really slow down pulling the long grades on the Canadian side. Is the I90 any better? MaxEnt 19:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Added the following, which I hope is correct:

Sixty miles east of Bellevue I-90 traverses the Cascade Mountain Snoqualmie Pass, elevation 3,022 feet, the lowest east-west highway crossing in Washington state.[1]

MaxEnt 20:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

MaxEnt - Does Washington_State_Route_14 count as a highway? "SR-14 is a two-lane highway which often runs along steep bluffs as high as 800 feet through the Columbia Gorge"

I-90 is 4 lanes through the steeper part of the pass, so what about the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liddlebigguy (talk • contribs) 02:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.gonorthwest.com/washington/cascades/Snoqualmie-Pass/snoqualmie_pass.htm

Free 90?

I have never heard the I-90 refered to as the "Free 90" before. I checked the NYSDOT webpage and did not see this anywhere, either. The 'Free 90' doesn't even make sense, as I-90 is a toll road for much of it's length through NY.

I am not editing the page, however, as perhaps this is a regional expression.

"Free 90" is probably not an official term, and the common man usually refers to it as I-90. It is true that it is toll (under NYSTA) for most of New York State; hence, the small portion that is free (under NYSDOT) is known as "Free 90." So it does make sense, for exactly the reason you said it doesn't. ;) I've seen it used on some other web sites, so though it is probably not official, some do call it that. It is never used when talking about I-90 itself, but just to specifically point out the part that lacks any other name. (We don't call the rest "Toll 90;" it's just called the Thruway and the Berkshire extension.) --Chris 04:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Again, I clarify the situation which probably confuses those from areas where there was no good freeway system prior to the Interstate Highway System. The Thruway was established independently of Interstate Highways. The Berkshire Connector was built to connect the Thruway with the Mass Pike. Then, when I-90 came through, rather than just designate the entire berkshire connector as I-90 and the whole mainline northwest of that, a Free 90 was built to connect the berkshire connector with the thruway at the point that was selected for i-87 to divert. as a result, we have i-90 in three very distinct parts, 2 of them belonging to the very same ticketing system. There's the Thruway mainline, from the end to interchange 24, and then there is Free 90, which has its own west to east exit numbering and mileage system. Then I-90 re-enters the Thruway system at interchange B1 on the Berkshire extension and continues into massachusetts.

I'm from Albany, NY, and have NEVER heard "Free 90" or "Freebie 90" or anything along those lines. It was always simply referred to as "90" or "I-90." The toll portions of Interstate 90 are either just referred to as the Thruway, or the "Berkshire Spur" (accordingly). LDF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.173.140 (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image

Might this image of the East Portal of the Mount Baker Ridge Tunnel be worth including? Maybe as a replacement for the image of a rather dull section of road near Ellensburg, WA? (I won't be watchlisting this, so if someone thinks the substitution would be a good idea, please go for it.) - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This highway cant really be more than 3,000 miles long that is just ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.126.82 (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I-5 and I-95

I added in Interstate 5 and urge others to add Interstate 95 to the list of junctions. I-5 and I-95 are major north-south interstates ending in 0 or 5, not sure why they are omitted from major junctions list. If it exceeds some limit, we should remove I-29, I-39, and/or I-81 instead.71.231.93.28 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that Seattle and Boston are already listed as termini, but that's not the point. The thing is that I-5 and I-95 are not in the infobox list of "major junctions", even though they are listed in the section down below. I'm suggesting removing two of the three I-29, I-39, and I-81 (they're already in the list down below) and replace them with I-95 and I-5. According to the discussion up there, major interstates are ones ending in 5 or 0, not necessarily the most busy (though I question whether I-29, I-39, and I-81 are even really busy).71.113.21.204 (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Large KML file

Is it possible to add a KML file to this article or should it be made KML exempt? For reference I am adding a link to the KML file I uploaded to Google Docs. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no problems with adding one. --Rschen7754 19:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
When I log back in I may give it a try. It will almost certainly end up listed at Special:LongPages. 2001:470:B:53:0:0:0:65 (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Aborted. See mw:Manual:$wgMaxArticleSize. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 02:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Interstate 90. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

More Chicago Skyway controversy

Whomever writes TollroadsNews asked whether or not the Chicago Skyway is part of Interstate 90. According to my understanding of the article, Cecilio A Leonin of the FHWA Office of Program Administration states Illinois always considered the Skyway as I-90 when they were reporting cost estimates to Congress during the Interstate construction period back in the 1950s, and today when Illinois reports to Congress for its portion of Interstate Maintenance funds. [2] Though as the article later notes, this is dependent on Illinois actually knowing and reporting accurately what the Skyway is. SterlingNorth 05:12, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

Blue Earth, MN "Final Mile"

"The wayside rest area near Blue Earth, Minnesota, is where the east-building I-90 and west-building I-90 teams linked up in 1978, thus completing the final mile and joining the 3,099.07 miles (4,987.47 km) of the Interstate"

This is misleading because it implies that it was the final mile of the entire highway, when in reality it was the last section completed in Minnesota. Each state built their section on their own schedule, and sections in Wyoming were still being built in the 1980s. Frustratingly, even newer MnDOT sources repeat this romanticized "golden spike" story. Any ideas for better sources that tell the story more neutrally, without using WP:SYN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 90. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 90. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Add I-87!

The Albany Interchange of Interstates 87 and 90 is incredible and should be mentioned 47.16.99.72 (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Replace I-77 with I-39?

Hmm, I was thinking about this. While I-39 is not as notable as I-77, and is shorter, there is already an Ohio link for I-75. None for Wisconsin. It's better to spread it out. (On a side note, it might be worthwhile to give it a Pennsylvania link, minus the fact that there isn't anything better. We might be better off replacing I-77 with I-79.) Pinging active USRD participants Dough4872 Imzadi1979 Destroyeraa Needforspeed888 Cards84664 Fredddie WashiOtaku this is not a canvassing attempt rather to notify people into a discussion who are active so it doesn't go stale. --Hurricane Tracker 495 23:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have a preference. All of those can be considered major junctions. Needforspeed888 (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
There’s currently 11 junctions in the infobox. We have a limit of 10 junctions in the infobox. Therefore I would probably just remove the I-77 junction since Ohio is already represented with I-75 and generally for longer Interstates we usually include junctions with major Interstates (those ending in 0 or 5). Dough4872 00:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, we've got one too many, so I-77 should go and nothing should replace it. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
That's right; there is 11. I'll go fix it. --Hurricane Tracker 495 00:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 90/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'd say a fairly good article, I've worked on a bit. But its definitely not perfect. --Hurricane Tracker 495 14:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Reviewer: Destroyeraa (talk · contribs)

Comments—I think this nomination is fairly premature. Just looking at things, the RD section is mostly unreferenced, and the history section is way too short to meet the GA criteria. Start looking at all of the state-level articles and pull summaries of the construction history over and make sure the RD has more footnotes. Until then, this will never pass. Imzadi 1979 → 16:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495: Some tidbits. First, you should not create the review page. The reviewer should. Second, it is futile to nominate an article for GA when it is clearly not ready. Make sure that the article meets the six criterion stated on WP:GAI. I’m sorry, but if an article is clearly not ready and has missing citations, it is almost a guaranteed speedy fail. I hope this helps. Happy holidays! ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 02:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I see now. (I may have to wake up at christmas before 630 am due to the windstorm). --Hurricane Tracker 495 02:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

B-class?

I know why Imzadi1979 and Destroyeraa failed the GA review, but is the article at least at B class quality or still only C class quality? --Hurricane Tracker 495 20:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495: As much as I want it to be B-class, it fails the citation criterion of B-class. Many places need citations. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 20:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not B-Class, not because of the citations, per se, but because the History section is so deficient. Imzadi 1979 → 20:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
It fails both b1 and b2, which is referencing and citations and also coverage and accuracy. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 21:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@Destroyeraa: USRD doesn't use that set of criteria. See WP:USRD/A. Imzadi 1979 → 21:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979: Aw, ok. Thanks. I was using the WPTC criteria :) ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 22:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)~ Destroyer🌀🌀 22:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
In USRD after C-class it requires an in depth review. --Hurricane Tracker 495 22:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
If the history section were any more deficient, this would be Start-Class. Imzadi 1979 → 00:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Not too easy to expand, either, without going into nitty gritty details from every state. --Hurricane Tracker 495 00:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you, but you've chosen one of the most difficult U.S. road articles to try and get to GA. --Rschen7754 00:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: Better article? --Hurricane Tracker 495 01:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
You picked the longest Interstate Highway. Not only is it over 3000 miles long, it goes through several states. That means that you have to go and research the history in each state - not every single last detail, but enough to give a good overview. This is just about the worst article to start with in all of USRD. Even something like California State Route 125 which is a lot simpler, can take me several days to research and write. This one? Maybe a few months. --Rschen7754 02:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Huh. It's really the history section that needs most work with a few sources. I was thinking maybe Interstate 87 (New York), but its already a GA. Maybe i should work on Interstate 95 instead? --Hurricane Tracker 495 02:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And yet, that's what we have to do. That section should be a summary of the overall history of the full length. It doesn't have to go into every detail, because the sub articles do that, but it should provide a summary of the highlights: when were the toll roads built that preceded the Interstate designation. When was the highway finished, etc.? Nothing on the post-completion highlights (Big Dig in Boston?) either. You may have content in the RD that should be moved to the History for starters. Imzadi 1979 → 00:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with everything said above about the history section being deficient. It takes time to do it right. Hell, it took me 9 years to write an article that went live earlier this month. I would look over the 13 state-detail articles and write down the key events (and dates) from each state and arrange them chronologically. Then find some natural breaks so we avoid every paragraph having the format "In Washington, ... In Idaho, ..., etc." The page size gadget tells me "Prose size (text only): 17 kB (2886 words) "readable prose size". To be honest, I'd expect a decent history section on this article to be pushing 100 kB on its own. –Fredddie™ 02:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I think, because of the history section, that it should be classified as no more than start. Also please note that the user in question (Hurricane Tracker 495) has been blocked as a sockpuppet. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 90/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

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

I've seen this article progress recently, and I'm quite optimistic that third time is the charm for it. Comments coming shortly. Imzadi 1979 → 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    All good here. There's a few comments below on some points.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This is a good summary of the highlights of a very long multi-state Interstate Highway.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Looks good here
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Just the usual article improvements here.
  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):
    All good for the imagery. Another photo or two for the History section might be nice, if hard to come by, just to break up the section visually.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Just holding for some minor copyedits.

Lead:

  • "Washington State Route 519" in the lead, but just "State Route 519" in the RD mini-lead. If there's a specific reason for the inconsistency, no worries, if not, harmony might be better.
    • Fixed the RD uses.
  • The second paragraph jumps from Washington state to the Great Lakes region. It would be better to put a sentence in between mentioning that I-90 crosses the northern Great Plains to bridge that gap.
    • Ok, after reading through the RD, Homestake Pass is in Montana, yet that sentence in the lead makes it sound as if it's in Washington state. A little c/e here just to clear that up would help, and then a mention of the Plains as well.
      • Rewrote the paragraph to be a bit more detailed.
  • Otherwise the lead and infobox look good for content.

Route description

  • "Montana has the longest section of I-90, at almost 552 miles (888 km), but is not completely crossed by the highway." This sentence reads awkwardly to me. I know that you mean by it though because I-90 doesn't exit Montana into the Dakotas.
    • Reworded to "only serving a portion of the state's east–west width", though I might change it later if I can think of something smoother.
  • Personally, I would refer to sections of concurrent highway in the singular and not the plural. While there are multiple designations involved, it's still a single roadway. In various references, I'd also use the slash form to join the concurrent designations together, "I-39/US 51" instead of "I-39 and US 51" to reinforce this singular nature.
    • Fixed, except in cases where there are separate but parallel roadways (e.g. I-80/90 and I-94).
  • The Dead Man's Curve citations probably should be within the parentheses to clarify that they apply to that content and not really to the rest of the sentence. One footnote there should be sufficient as well.
    • Fixed.
  • Everything else looks good in the RD.

History

  • Overall, the section reads well. It might help to insert some subheadings just so that this section isn't a single wall of text. I didn't see anything in here that needs adjusting to meet the GA criteria.
    • Divided the section, but it's not as neat as I would have liked. Will look at retooling it again in a bit.
  • I would change the reference to the federal government creating the US Highway System though. It was a product of AASHO at the time. The Joint Board on Interstate Highways would be more like a modern commission tasked with studying something that recommended AASHO and the states take the actions they did.
    • Reworded to "at the suggestion of the federal government"

Names and designations

  • My only quibble is that it can look bad to have three footnotes at the end of a sentence. Usually that's a sign that an editor is trying to over-reinforce a point, but in this case, it's just that you have triplets of states doing something in concert. In short, just be aware of this potential concern if taking this article farther up the assessment ladder.
    • Broke up the clumps.

Major intersections and Auxiliary routes

  • All good here.

References

  • There are a few stylistic comments I'd make on the footnotes if this were a nomination at ACR or FAC. For GAN, they look good.
  • As noted in the checklist, they all pass the RS test.

Lengths incorrect?

Are the lengths in each state incorrect?

I did check out the reference and they tally. However when I compared that with real world data, they didn't match.

WI State entry La Cross and exit Beloit has a total of 188 miles as per Google Maps. The article (as well as the reference) states this length to be 108 miles. Is this the distance as the crow flies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misslinius (talk • contribs) 22:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a discrepancy in FHWA's published length for Wisconsin. MM 108.61 in the Badger State would correspond to the interchange with I-39 near Portage. Basically, FWHA has forgotten to add in the I-39 overlap in that state. According to WisDOT, I-90 is 187.13 miles. So we're missing 80.52 miles from the overall total. I emailed the contact for the FHWA Route Log and Finder List to alert the to the issue. Imzadi 1979 → 06:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

West end

Hello! Just like I said at Talk: Interstate 65 in Indiana, This article’s west end is confusing between WA 519 and I-5. So, what’s the real west end? If yes, It will be added to This article and Interstate 90 in Washington. So reply if you know. I-5 will be removed from junction if west end. Bye. 2601:244:4081:500:B131:1164:5516:40F0 (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I-90 does not end at I-5, the freeway continues beyond to SR 519/4th Avenue/Edgar Martinez Way. This is present in the FHWA and WSDOT logs, and is also reflected in signage. SounderBruce 20:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Length of I-90

I'm trying to determine the actual length of I-90 (to within +/- 1 mile). Wikipedia says 3021. Simple Wikipedia says 3099.07 (seems like false precision to me). Google Maps (in Directions mode) says: 3082. I trust the Google Maps estimate the most because it is not summing segment distances by state as the other's are. I'm going to be driving I-90 end to end soon, so I'll report back my actual mileage. In the meantime, I think the entry for I-90 should say something about the unreliability of the length estimate. BTW, I also checked the length of I-90 in just MA and it was different from the Google Map's distance, so I think there is a problem with state by state lengths. Nick (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The Google Maps link provided overshoots the eastern terminus by a bit and also counts a bit too much in the western terminus. The FHWA table is used because it is consistent across all Interstates and regularly updated to a static page; as such, it's the best for a disputed figure like this. There seems to be a discrepancy in Wisconsin (as noted here), but that can be fixed eventually. SounderBruce 00:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Yes, my terminii result in a bit of an over-estimate, but it's likely less than a mile of an over estimate. (It's interesting that it's not clear exactly where I-90 ends and US-1 begins.) Even if my Google Maps estimate is off by several miles (which is unlikely), 3082 is very different from the Wiki figures of 3021 and 3099. Is there some way to at least highlight the suspect accuracy of the length estimate in the main article? If not, then this talk section will at least document the issue for those willing to dig into the details. During my drive, I'll try to remember to make note of the odometer readings as I pass each state line. This will give me a feel for which state estimates are most out of whack. Nick (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Drawing our own conclusions might fall under WP:SYNTH and not appropriate for a featured article. If a reliable source covers the discrepancy, then it can be included here. SounderBruce 01:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Understood. If I were to tighten up the Google Maps endpoints for I-90, would it be appropriate to mention its result as a discrepancy with the State DOT figures suggesting that the overall distance based on those state by state figures may be inaccurate by tens of miles? Nick (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
There was just a long RfC about how to interpret maps as sources, but I'm pretty sure the consensus is against doing just that. The FHWA's table is a fine enough source and the site is about Verifiability, not truth nowadays. SounderBruce 02:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the VNT policy and the RfC re maps as sources. They are quite informative. I'm glad to see your position in favor of accepting dynamic maps as sources: "The use of dynamic maps is no different from many dynamic websites and sources already used widely across Wikipedia, including in scrutinized areas such as BLPs and higher assessment levels. It is comparable to citing a table of sports statistics, demographic information, or timetables that are expected to change on a more frequent basis. Yes, there are concerns about long-term archiving, but finding solution for each case (as not all dynamic maps have the same issues) would be preferable to banning an entire type of source". Perhaps someday this will be accepted policy. Until then, I suppose the verifiable but inaccurate DOT information will stand. Thanks for engaging with my issue, I really appreciate it. PS If I were able to get a reliable source, say the New York Times, to do an article on my private project of measuring the I-90 distances, and how they are different from the official sources, would that be citable in the Wikipedia entry? Just curious, since I doubt any news media would be interested. Nick (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
It can be quite frustrating to have to write within the site's policies, but it's just something we've become resigned to over time. Coverage from any reliable source would be enough to add some mention here. SounderBruce 04:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Western Terminus

After looking carefully at the map of I-90 in Seattle and the major junctions list, I feel it is best to combine I-5 and WA-519 into one western terminus to look like:

SR 519 / I-5 in Seattle, Washington

Yes they’re not in the same exit but I believe they’re close enough to be considered one junction slot (they’re .25 miles apart), plus it gives us room to add another major junction (perhaps I-87 in NY or I-29 in Fargo, SD) Jason Ingtonn (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

They are not the same junction and they should not be combined. WSDOT also does not combine them in logs or interchange diagrams because they are considered separate facilities. SounderBruce 18:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
It seems really counterintuitive to have the junction with I-5 take up 1/10 of the junctions slots when it is about a quarter mile away from the end with SR 519 when they can easily be combined to save a slot; and much of the I-90 route in between these junctions are ramps heading to the sports arena or Martinez Drive (SR 519). I-5 exiting westbound doesn’t even have I-90 signed. I don’t think it would hurt to combine I-5 with SR 519.
Jason Ingtonn (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I-87 and I-29 intersections are clearly more noteworthy than SR-519 Irishbugs (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Wisconsin length may be in process of being corrected on FHWA source

The length per state table in the description section comes from the Federal Highway Administration and thus propagates the omission of the I-39 overlap distance in Wisconsin, meaning the Wisconsin length is given as 108 miles rather than the full 187 miles that I-90 travels through Wisconsin. The source has a prominent contact link, and I have reached out to the FHWA about the omission. I have received a response that the I-90 total length is being verified on their end with the Wisconsin DOT, so that omission may finally be corrected! Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Infobox junctions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Per WP:ACD, discussion arguments which make reference to WP:PAG are considered strongest. There were few, if any, in this discussion, despite the obvious relevancy of e.g. MOS:INFOBOX. There were no arguments in favour of options B or C that went further than WP:ILIKEIT-adjacent sentiments. Option A did not achieve unanimous support because it was felt that retaining an unresolved dispute would not be helpful, but Moabdave's argument—that IAR adding an eleventh junction would likely not end the dispute—was not convincingly rebutted. I therefore find that this RfC reached no consensus. (non-admin closure) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Taking my "closer hat" off, I would urge the discussants to consider whether there needs to be a "Major junctions" section in the infobox at all or whether it could simply be a link to the "Major intersections" section. It seems to me that this would be, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the easiest way to definitely resolve this long-running dispute.

After doing thorough research, I have found out that the WikiProject for Roads allows 10 significant junctions. Normally, this isn’t an issue but for a highway as long as I-90, there are a lot of junctions and there has been constant edit warring and talk page discussions over what junctions to include. I am proposing the following

  • Option A: Status quo
  • Option B: Merging I-5 and SR-519 together, since they are right next to each other and we have done similar combination of junctions when they don’t exactly intersect in the same spot, see U.S. Route 20 and the merger of I-87 and I-90, and how U.S. Route 11 combines the junction of I-76 and I-81 despite not being in the exact same spot.
  • Option C: Replace the second I-80 junction with another unique road, such as the I-87 junction in Albany, the I-29 junction in Sioux Falls, or even the concurrency with I-39.
  • Option D: Use IAR to allow 11 junctions.

Some of these options contradict each other, but feel free to support multiple options that don’t contradict or offer your own opinions. RoadFan294857 (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Personally, I oppose A, neutral on B, support C, neutral on D. This infobox does need improvements but I am not sure that combining SR-519 and I-5 is the right call, and just because it’s done on one article doesn’t make it correct. Also, 11 junctions might make it look awkward. That being said, there is absolutely no reason why I-80 needs to be listed there twice, and on such an important interstate, it really takes a valuable spot away from another more significant junction. Plus, I-75 also intersect I-90 in Ohio, and we can get more states junctions linked if we do a switch. RoadFan294857 (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't get involved much in this stuff. D seems reasonable, since it's just a one-junction difference, and guidelines are treated with common sense, and some exception may apply. However, B could also work. I'm not sure I fully understand C. A doesn't seem very practical ("keep having an unresolve dispute indefinitely" is pretty much never the answer).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support A and strongly oppose B. It's a separate junction, end of story; that is how it is treated by WSDOT, the FHWA, and the local press in Seattle. We should not be bundling interchanges on our own, which is basically a form of original research. The status quo agreed upon by USRD has been stable for years and has carried through this article's FAC, so I don't see why anything needs to change here. SounderBruce 23:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
    Should I fix it on US 20 and US 11, in that case? RoadFan294857 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    @RoadFan294857: the fact that two other articles do something incorrect (falsely implying a concurrency that does not exist) does not mean that we should do the same incorrect thing here. Since those other articles are wrong, they should be fixed and not used as models for editing here. Imzadi 1979 → 05:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • This has implications beyond that of I-90, and should be advertised atWT:USRD, WT:HWY and probably a few others. The 10 junctions limit originally came about after feedback and discussions at venues such as FAC. The concern as expressed at the time was the infobox was drowning out the rest of the article by being too long. Somewhere in those discussions, the number 10 came about as what kept the infobox at an appropriate length. I don't think it was originally intended to be a hard limit, but it became one after a seemingly never ending pattern of new editors that would add an 11th, and then a 12th, and then ... I do like them, and do think they add to the article. However, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion we'd be better off ridding the infobox of the major junctions section entirely. Through the years that section has proven to be an article maintenance distraction. People just seem bizarrely infatuated with which junctions go into this infobox and bizarrely offended if their favorite isn't included. I assure you, if we agree "ok in this case we'll have 11" it won't be long before someone will start adding an 11th junction to other articles because "I-90 has 11" and then add number 12 to this one. Dave (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support A and Strong Oppose B/C/D—per Sounder Bruce above. Additionally, the obsession with the junction list in the infobox boggles my mind. We can have an article that's totally crap in terms of content or formatting, even an article missing content, and people will argue that we left out their favorite junction in the infobox or included one they don't like, as Moabdave also mentions. A full-fledged RfC on this topic seems premature as well as there has been no other discussion or attempts to resolve a minor content dispute. Imzadi 1979 → 05:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Your justification doesn’t exactly explain why C or D doesn’t work, it does say why B wouldn’t work, but especially not C. And an RFC is appropriate here as WP:RFCBEFORE was satisfied - discussions in the past occurred [3] [4] on the I-5/SR-519 issue, the Infobox discussion also were debated [5]. It appears that without a formal consensus, this issue will never be resolved. As for removing the junctions would have to come down to a seperate RFC once this one concludes. RoadFan294857 (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    You didn't attempt to discuss the other issues though. We've jumped from recent discussions about the terminus in 2023 to an RfC (a heavyweight process) about the whole of junction list in the infobox without intervening steps. (The one discussion on the topic of the junctions as a whole is from 2006. That's too long ago to be of much use other than starting another basic talk page discussion on the expanded topic.)
    I'm also a bit suspicious of an account that starts an RfC as its third edit and knows about WP:RFCBEFORE by its fifth edit without knowledge of prior editing history. Imzadi 1979 → 04:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • :Oppose A, Support B, Strongly Support C, Neutral on D - I opened a now-archived talk here to merge I-5 with the western end SR 518 with the argument that I-90 inbetween I-5 and 519 is roughly just a connector for I-5 and 90 drivers to enter T-Mobile park & seaports. Regardless of whether this happens, I would like to see I-87 in Albany or I-29 in South Dakota be on the list. Removing the I-80 without 94 jct would also be a feasible option. Hence why I best recommend we go down the option C path and change the second 80 with 87 or 19. This seems to be the most harmless option that sets no precedents of any kind, or breaks some sort of rules. I see no reason replacing said junction would have major implications unlike B and D, as it just be a typical Wikipedia edit. Jason Ingtonn (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support option D, oppose A, neutral on B and C. Option D is the simplest way to resolve this, especially as it's a very small departure from an arbitrary guideline, and fully agree with SMcCandlish when they say "keep having an unresolve[d] dispute indefinitely" is pretty much never the answer so option A is not desirable here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support A, strongly oppose B, C, and D. I don't agree with merging I-5 and SR 519 together, especially when I-90 continues a bit beyond it. Using I-87 instead of I-80 is not a good option especially when I-80 is a much longer and major interstate, having the longest concurrency with I-90. Lastly, I do NOT support having 11 junctions in the infobox. Not only does that mess everything up, it makes them more cluttered. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:55, 29 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_90/Archive_1&oldid=1228773643"