U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee 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: April 18, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Tennessee State Route 137 page were merged into U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (19 May 2017) |
Yes - This merge has been long overdo to become official because US 23 (TN) page already has the merged information of SR 137 as well as I-26 (TN). SR 137 should become a simple redirect with no further edits necessary. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Klbrain ( talk) 17:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Since I-26 is definitely the more prominent designation for this highway, I feel that the current title gives undue weight to US 23. I would like to propose that this article be retitled, per WP:USRD/NT#Combined articles, to something like Interstate 26 and U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee. Since ~95% of this route is concurrent with I-26, having two separate articles for each designation and titling this article Interstate 26 in Tennessee would probably be inappropriate. Bneu2013 ( talk) 05:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The mileposts are currently numbered according to I-26's mileage in the junction list, and completely ignore the 3-mile US 23 section in Kingsport. Since this article is titled "US 23 in Tennessee", not "I-26 in Tennessee", I feel that it would be more appropriate to list the mileage for US 23 in the junction list. However, if there is a way to display mileages for both routes in the table, I would like to know how to do this. Bneu2013 ( talk) 16:03, 13 January 2024 (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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Bneu2013 ( talk · contribs) 23:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: NoobThreePointOh ( talk · contribs) 09:39, 18 April 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. | Spelling and grammar are proper. I can do some spelling improvements if I can, but for what it's worth, this is passable. I don't see anything that won't appeal to a range of audiences. The route description is also well detailed for a highway that only runs like 57 or 58 miles in Tennessee. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Follows MOS perfectly fine and has lists incorporated well. | |
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. | All material in the route description and history sections of the article that could be considered contentious have references. | |
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). | The sources are cited inline without any formatting errors. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No original research as far as the eye can see. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows only a 3.8% on the copyvio detector, which is incredibly low. Even then, there's no sign of any possible plagiarism. Nice work. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Fixed this up. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Does this properly. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Looks fine and gives equal weight to I-26 as well, even though that interstate is less significant.
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | I see no edit wars, which is fine.
| |
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. | Images are not copyrighted and are fair use. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The images are relevant to the article and have captions to explain, along with significance. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Actually, I'm done reviewing. This article looks very good in quality, and I will pass this. |
U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee 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: April 18, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Tennessee State Route 137 page were merged into U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (19 May 2017) |
Yes - This merge has been long overdo to become official because US 23 (TN) page already has the merged information of SR 137 as well as I-26 (TN). SR 137 should become a simple redirect with no further edits necessary. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Klbrain ( talk) 17:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Since I-26 is definitely the more prominent designation for this highway, I feel that the current title gives undue weight to US 23. I would like to propose that this article be retitled, per WP:USRD/NT#Combined articles, to something like Interstate 26 and U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee. Since ~95% of this route is concurrent with I-26, having two separate articles for each designation and titling this article Interstate 26 in Tennessee would probably be inappropriate. Bneu2013 ( talk) 05:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The mileposts are currently numbered according to I-26's mileage in the junction list, and completely ignore the 3-mile US 23 section in Kingsport. Since this article is titled "US 23 in Tennessee", not "I-26 in Tennessee", I feel that it would be more appropriate to list the mileage for US 23 in the junction list. However, if there is a way to display mileages for both routes in the table, I would like to know how to do this. Bneu2013 ( talk) 16:03, 13 January 2024 (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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Bneu2013 ( talk · contribs) 23:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: NoobThreePointOh ( talk · contribs) 09:39, 18 April 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. | Spelling and grammar are proper. I can do some spelling improvements if I can, but for what it's worth, this is passable. I don't see anything that won't appeal to a range of audiences. The route description is also well detailed for a highway that only runs like 57 or 58 miles in Tennessee. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Follows MOS perfectly fine and has lists incorporated well. | |
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. | All material in the route description and history sections of the article that could be considered contentious have references. | |
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). | The sources are cited inline without any formatting errors. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No original research as far as the eye can see. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows only a 3.8% on the copyvio detector, which is incredibly low. Even then, there's no sign of any possible plagiarism. Nice work. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Fixed this up. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Does this properly. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Looks fine and gives equal weight to I-26 as well, even though that interstate is less significant.
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | I see no edit wars, which is fine.
| |
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. | Images are not copyrighted and are fair use. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The images are relevant to the article and have captions to explain, along with significance. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Actually, I'm done reviewing. This article looks very good in quality, and I will pass this. |