![]() | The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page. Date: 20:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC) |
![]() | Interstate 85 in North Carolina has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 12, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Interstate 85 in North Carolina article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Began the talk page. Any and all comments and questions are welcomed. -- Bdj95 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
NC state highway shields are all square, no matter the number, so routes with 3 digits are still 20px... just so you know for future reference. -- Triadian 03:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The northbound and southbound parts are separate. Northbound, it's linked to NC 152, while southboumd, it's linked to US 29 via an unsigned connector. I added this, but it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.240.209 ( talk) 21:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no direct return to I-85 from the NC 152 northbound exit. Northbound motorists exiting at Exit 68 onto NC 152 desiring to re-enter northbound I-85 must utilize the unsigned connector, and vice-versa for southbound motorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.240.92 ( talk) 00:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Interstate 85 in North Carolina. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Interstate 85 in North Carolina. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sunherald.com/2012/05/24/3970042/ready-for-the-jeff-gordon-expressway.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Is anybody making any effort to split the commons category by county, and/or by city? --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 18:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you all think that this article is ready to become a good article? At first, it didn't seem like a good article, but then I realized that the route description was way too short. So I went ahead and rewrote it by hand, and added inline citations to the paragraphs that didn't have them before. After that, I nominated it, because the entire article is fully detailed, all citations are inline, and it doesn't go into unnecessary detail. Let me know if you guys have any questions. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 23:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: NoobThreePointOh ( talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Keresluna ( talk · contribs) 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I will take on this review.
Keres🌕
Luna
edits!
18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Done. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Looks fine. |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Present. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig didn't find anything. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Okay. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Looks fine. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All checked. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Random ref checks:
4: Checks out.
27: Checks out.
39: Checks out. Keres🌕 Luna edits! 16:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 17:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC).
Unpromoted. Pulled per
Special:Diff/1232390332. Note this is the second time this hook has been pulled, so sending it back to unapproved to get a good hard look.
RoySmith
(talk)
14:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@ RoySmith, Daniel Case, NoobThreePointOh, and JuniperChill: FWIW there is an article here - [1] which discusses this in detail. I suppose it's questionable whether the "North Carolina Rabbit Hole" is a reliable source, but the guy does seem to have done his research and interviewed the road's designer and suchlike, so interested on opinions on that? — Amakuru ( talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
References
Many instances of statements which are not supported by the cited references. I marked up a bunch in Special:Diff/1232453072, but this is just a small sampling, and marking them all up would be more like vandalism than anything else. In many cases, entire paragraphs are cited to a single source, which is often just a DOT map showing major road alignments. I also described a bunch more sourcing problems in Special:Diff/1232450469. In short, this was a grossly defective GA review. RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I-85 narrows back down to six lanes ... [36]not supported by the map
The landscape becomes more rural as I-85 reaches just outside of Lexington ... [37]the cited document does't say anything about the landscape becoming rural.
I-85 enters a large forest with tree-lined medians and crosses Abbotts Creek ... [38]that's a link to a map that says nothing about a "large forest" or "tree-lined medians".
Comment - I expressed my opinions in this discussion on the nominator's talk page that this article was not ready for GA before the nomination was picked up. The biggest issues I raised were overreliance on maps for opening dates (when better sources such as Newspapers and DOT reports are available), the lack of information about notable post-construction projects, and formatting. Most of these issues still remain. In addition, I also recently quickfailed the nomination of Interstate 485 for many of the same reasons. Bneu2013 ( talk) 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
A few more sourcing problems:
Because the previous exit is northbound-only, drivers going southbound must use NC 47 to access I-285.[39]I don't see anywhere in the cited source that talks about this.
Once the lanes pass under Johnsontown Road around milemarker 102, the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction.[43]the cited map shows nothing approaching the level of detail which would justify making this statement.
Reading the thread noted by
Bneu2013 above, I see you wrote: I'm usually more familiar with the I-85 article compared to I-40 since I've gone along I-85 more frequently and am living closer to that corridor.
I suspect this is a core part of the problem. You have statement like restaurants, businesses, churches, and car dealerships lining the road.[16]
and Businesses, restaurants, parks, and buildings can be seen lining the sides of the highway.[53]
both of which are cited to sources which say absolutely nothing about these things. I'm guessing that you are relying on your personal knowledge obtained by driving the route yourself. Am I correct? If so, that is
WP:OR and cannot be used. I apologize for my tone, but the requirement to use
reliable published sources to establish
verifiability is a core policy and it's astonishing to me that this level of non-sourcing got as far as passing a GA review.
RoySmith
(talk)
14:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page. Date: 20:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC) |
![]() | Interstate 85 in North Carolina has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 12, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Interstate 85 in North Carolina article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Began the talk page. Any and all comments and questions are welcomed. -- Bdj95 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
NC state highway shields are all square, no matter the number, so routes with 3 digits are still 20px... just so you know for future reference. -- Triadian 03:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The northbound and southbound parts are separate. Northbound, it's linked to NC 152, while southboumd, it's linked to US 29 via an unsigned connector. I added this, but it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.240.209 ( talk) 21:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no direct return to I-85 from the NC 152 northbound exit. Northbound motorists exiting at Exit 68 onto NC 152 desiring to re-enter northbound I-85 must utilize the unsigned connector, and vice-versa for southbound motorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.240.92 ( talk) 00:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Interstate 85 in North Carolina. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Interstate 85 in North Carolina. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sunherald.com/2012/05/24/3970042/ready-for-the-jeff-gordon-expressway.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Is anybody making any effort to split the commons category by county, and/or by city? --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 18:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you all think that this article is ready to become a good article? At first, it didn't seem like a good article, but then I realized that the route description was way too short. So I went ahead and rewrote it by hand, and added inline citations to the paragraphs that didn't have them before. After that, I nominated it, because the entire article is fully detailed, all citations are inline, and it doesn't go into unnecessary detail. Let me know if you guys have any questions. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 23:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: NoobThreePointOh ( talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Keresluna ( talk · contribs) 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I will take on this review.
Keres🌕
Luna
edits!
18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Done. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Looks fine. |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Present. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig didn't find anything. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Okay. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Looks fine. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All checked. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Random ref checks:
4: Checks out.
27: Checks out.
39: Checks out. Keres🌕 Luna edits! 16:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 17:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC).
Unpromoted. Pulled per
Special:Diff/1232390332. Note this is the second time this hook has been pulled, so sending it back to unapproved to get a good hard look.
RoySmith
(talk)
14:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@ RoySmith, Daniel Case, NoobThreePointOh, and JuniperChill: FWIW there is an article here - [1] which discusses this in detail. I suppose it's questionable whether the "North Carolina Rabbit Hole" is a reliable source, but the guy does seem to have done his research and interviewed the road's designer and suchlike, so interested on opinions on that? — Amakuru ( talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
References
Many instances of statements which are not supported by the cited references. I marked up a bunch in Special:Diff/1232453072, but this is just a small sampling, and marking them all up would be more like vandalism than anything else. In many cases, entire paragraphs are cited to a single source, which is often just a DOT map showing major road alignments. I also described a bunch more sourcing problems in Special:Diff/1232450469. In short, this was a grossly defective GA review. RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I-85 narrows back down to six lanes ... [36]not supported by the map
The landscape becomes more rural as I-85 reaches just outside of Lexington ... [37]the cited document does't say anything about the landscape becoming rural.
I-85 enters a large forest with tree-lined medians and crosses Abbotts Creek ... [38]that's a link to a map that says nothing about a "large forest" or "tree-lined medians".
Comment - I expressed my opinions in this discussion on the nominator's talk page that this article was not ready for GA before the nomination was picked up. The biggest issues I raised were overreliance on maps for opening dates (when better sources such as Newspapers and DOT reports are available), the lack of information about notable post-construction projects, and formatting. Most of these issues still remain. In addition, I also recently quickfailed the nomination of Interstate 485 for many of the same reasons. Bneu2013 ( talk) 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
A few more sourcing problems:
Because the previous exit is northbound-only, drivers going southbound must use NC 47 to access I-285.[39]I don't see anywhere in the cited source that talks about this.
Once the lanes pass under Johnsontown Road around milemarker 102, the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction.[43]the cited map shows nothing approaching the level of detail which would justify making this statement.
Reading the thread noted by
Bneu2013 above, I see you wrote: I'm usually more familiar with the I-85 article compared to I-40 since I've gone along I-85 more frequently and am living closer to that corridor.
I suspect this is a core part of the problem. You have statement like restaurants, businesses, churches, and car dealerships lining the road.[16]
and Businesses, restaurants, parks, and buildings can be seen lining the sides of the highway.[53]
both of which are cited to sources which say absolutely nothing about these things. I'm guessing that you are relying on your personal knowledge obtained by driving the route yourself. Am I correct? If so, that is
WP:OR and cannot be used. I apologize for my tone, but the requirement to use
reliable published sources to establish
verifiability is a core policy and it's astonishing to me that this level of non-sourcing got as far as passing a GA review.
RoySmith
(talk)
14:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)