Talk:Portage Glacier Highway/Archive 1

Archive 1

Continued

I hope to finish the article by March 17. Anyone who wishes to help, do it.
Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 08:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5251312.pdf
• http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/mapping/trafficmaps/2010/Central/kenai_peninsula10.pdf

auto transport on flatcars

The article states that this idea was "rejected" but in fact it was done for some time. I never did it myself but I know people who did. The facility where they loaded the cars is still right there next to the Seward Highway, and you can see the ramps they used to drive the cars onto the trains. Perhaps a cite can be found about this? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's mentioned here and there is even a picture. Looks like they did this for the 30 or so years before the conversion of the tunnel to mixed road/rail. Not going to add it right at the moment since we may be merging the two articles, but there it is when the time comes. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

merge Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel here

Seems like a no-brainer to me, the two subjects are closely related, many of the citations used here are entirely about the tunnel, the same images are used, etc. If we are going to have an article on this road it might as well cover both topics, there is plenty of room for more content here and they are obviously interrelated. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done per WP:SILENCE. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

contradictions

I was looking for more information to add to the article, and found that The Milepost directly contradicts some of what it is in this article. It has the length at 11.4 miles, and says it ends at the Alaska Marine Highway ferry terminal, not the airstrip. That makes a lot more sense since most visitors to Whittier come on the fery or cruise ships, the airstrip is an untended gravel runway with no facilities. I think on the matter of Alaskan roads The Milepost is going to be a better resource than Google maps. Google maps are full of errors and omissions and are not fact-checked on the ground. The Mileposts prime selling point is its accuracy and attention to detail, and it's writers travel every one of these roads and are subject to fact checking and editorial oversight. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you double check something? That ISBN for The Milepost comes up as invalid. Is that citation to a book form of the magazine? If it's to a specific issue of the magazine we could/probably should cite it journal style with volume, issue and page number. Either way, we need an author (if credited), and a publication date of some kind added to the citation. Imzadi 1979 → 20:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I identified the edition and the page number in the cite. However it looks like I missed a digit on the ISBN, I'll correct that now. The Milepost is not a monthly magazine or anything, it only comes out once a year. The way information is presented in the Milepost specific entries are not attributed to a particular author. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason I asked is that in searching on worldcat.org to get the missing information to complete the citation, they were flagging it as a journal, not a book, and included an ISSN not an ISBN, which may be something that applied to older editions. Either way, with the corrected ISBN, I was able to complete the citation with publisher, author and date. Imzadi 1979 → 23:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's sort of an in-between thing, although journal seems like an applicable word. It's not really a book or a magazine, more like an incredibly thorough directory that also accepts paid advertisements. Useful for verification, not so useful for notability purposes since it aims to cover everything, from major cities right on down to entries like "mile 35.6 Large turnout to west with litter bins." By the way, it appears the edition I have employs an ISBN, which was the first number I posted, and an ISSN, which is the exact same number with one more digit at the end. They are both listed right under the barcode on the cover. Not sure what that means. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

question about recent edit

Specifically this one [1]. the document used as a ref is pretty long, rather than having to go through the whole thing I'd like to ask how it was determined that the tunnel entrance could possibly be the most heavily trafficked section of this road. The tunnel only goes to one place, Whittier is only accessible by road via the tunnel, therefore anyone who passes through it in either direction by definition also drives on the section of the road between Portage and and the National Forest visitor's center. As there is no alternate route and not everyone who drives to the visitor's center goes on to go through the tunnel, it seems frankly impossible that this could be accurate information. There must be some sort of misinterpretation of the data going on here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If you check pages III-34 and III-35 on the source ([2]), you will see that the busiest portion of the highway was the entrance to the tunnel from camp road, in Whittier. Don't ask me how it is the busiest, it just is. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, that makes no sense and After looking at the page you mention I still believe the data is being misinterpreted and the edit should be reverted until we are sure. It is not possible that what the article curently claims is accurate. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference was fixed. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 00:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Meaning, what exactly? Are you saying you found a rwference that explicitly confirms the conclusion you drew from the data? If so I'm not seeing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Portage Glacier Highway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 00:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I do not like the structure of the route description in referring to parts of the road such as the first part, second part, etc. This should be reworded.

    Done I believe this is fixed.

   There are a lot of sentences with "this stretch". Can some other words be used for some of these? Dough4872 20:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

    Done I think

   • The headers in the route description should be fixed. Either add a header for the section west of the Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel or remove the headers completely. I would recommend the latter.

    Done

   Is it possible for a header to be added to the first section of the Route description? Dough4872 20:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

    Done

   • There should not be bolding in the route description.

    Done

   • "The traffic count on the Portage Glacier Highway is somewhat high for a road in Alaska, with the 2010 traffic count for the Anton Anderson Tunnel being at 234,738 vehicles", high compared to what? I would suggest rewording to remove the comparison that it is high.

    Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • References should not be in the lead unless the information is unique there.

    Done unnecessary reference removed.

   • Reference 1 is a dead link.

    Done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Can some details about the physical surroundings be mentioned in the lead?

    Done

   • Can some more historical information be added to the lead?

    Done

   • I would suggest moving the information about the Intermodal Connector Route and National Highway System to the Route description.

    Done

   • I would suggest moving the Tolls section to before the History.

    Done

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I will put the article on hold for fixes to be made. Dough4872 00:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the issues have been resolved. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that all new issues have been fixed. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 01:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

After some fixes I made myself, I will pass the article. Dough4872 01:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1