![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Toolbox |
---|
Interstate 8 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
Notes:
Have fun, and enjoy reading.
Review by Moabdave
|
---|
Prose suggestions:
Suggested additions: I am impressed with the research done for the construction of I-8, one of the most thorough history sections I've read. However, I feel there are two details that are hinted at but glossed over that I'm aware of in the history of the I-8 corridor. If the sources aren't there to establish relevence to the I-8 corridor so be it, but I'd request to at least look:
Good luck, and sincerely well done fleshing out the construction details. The article is well written and I support its promotion even if the 3 expansion suggestions are not implemented. I'm not concerned about the overlap between teh history section of this article and the article U.S. Route 80 in California. The two are so tightly linked that I think some overlap is appropriate. Dave ( talk) 05:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
|
I am committing to reviewing this article. I am not sure when exactly I will get to it, so if anyone else wants to do a review, you can jump ahead of me. I intend to do a content-based run-through, then a stylistic/proofreading run-through, and then a final run-through. V C 00:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Fredddie
|
---|
I will take VC up on his offer to let me go first. – Fredddie ™ 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That should do it. – Fredddie ™ 16:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
|
Review by Evad37
|
---|
Initial impressions
More to come later - Evad37 [ talk 03:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Lead
Route description
History
– San Diego area
More to come later - Evad37 [ talk 08:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC) – Cuyamaca Mountains
Sorry for the delay, I will get around to finishing the rest of this review - Evad37 [ talk 13:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
– Imperial Valley
– Arizona
Auxiliary routes
No issues in the Exit list and subsequent sections - Evad37 [ talk 06:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Toolbox |
---|
Interstate 470 (Missouri) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
Done --
Rs
chen
7754
04:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess what's kept me from reviewing this is I'm not sure that the issues from the last review were resolved - Fredddie, would you mind taking a look? -- Rs chen 7754 02:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I was going to say I always like taking a look at articles for roads I've driven on, but then I realized I haven't actually been on this one. Oh well. I guess I'll make my excuse that I have somewhat close relatives in Kansas City.
I'd like to review this, but the issue is whether or not I'll find the time. If somebody wants to review I-470 before I get the chance, go right ahead and jump me. T C N7JM 03:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
Forrest Highway ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Comments:
Otherwise, the article looks good. Dough 48 72 00:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
Incomplete reviews
| ||
---|---|---|
First review by Fredddie
Second review by FredddieI will start over. – Fredddie ™ 17:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
|
Observation
|
---|
I made one grammar change to this article last week, and have since read through it several times to try to get the true sense of it, My conclusion: It is a disjointed and confusing read for a non-local. My suggestion: Needs review by someone with local knowledge to get the grammar, sequence, and structure right without compromising accuracy. I will watch this space with interest, and will help if I can. Cheers. Downsize43 ( talk) 07:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
NOTE: While browsing the article to write this I got brave and made some minor changes. Downsize43 ( talk) 00:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
|
Review by Rschen7754
|
---|
I do plan to review this article, though it may be a while before I get to it. -- Rs chen 7754 02:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Overall a comprehensive article and I should have no problem supporting once these issues are fixed. -- Rs chen 7754 05:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC) |
I am suspending this ACR as I have
nominated the article at FAC -
Evad37 [
talk
09:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
Ontario Highway 404 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Comments:
|
(withdrawn)
|
---|
Review by Rschen7754I plan to review this article too. -- Rs chen 7754 05:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Image review
|
---|
|
Resolved issues
|
---|
Infobox
Lead
Route description
History
Future
Exit list
References
- Evad37 [ talk 02:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Support - Evad37 [ talk 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Source review
|
---|
@ Floydian: I will do a source review for this article, but first can you fix the errors? Refs 9, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21 show "|chapter= ignored", and ref 20 has "Missing or empty |title= " - Evad37 [ talk 04:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Evad37 [ talk 03:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Toolbox |
---|
Ontario Highway 427 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
I will review this article. Dough 48 72 03:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Comments:
|
- Evad37 [ talk 02:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Resolved issues
|
---|
I plan to review this article, though it may be a day or two. -- Rs chen 7754 05:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Please bear with me as this is my first source review ever.
Otherwise I don't see any issues. -- Rs chen 7754 17:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
California State Route 94 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
I will claim the image review. Dough 48 72 01:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Although this is suspended, I will conduct the image review now since new images have been added to the article and can have it out of the way once it is unsuspended. Comments:
Review by Evad37
|
---|
I'm signing up to review this article - Evad37 [ talk 15:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Infobox
Lead
Route description
History
Major intersections
That's all, looking alright otherwise - Evad37 [ talk 15:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Source review by Evad37
|
---|
This is my first source review, so please let me know if I'm doing it right or not :). Ref numbers are as of the latest revision at 06:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
Is there anything else I need to check for a source review? - Evad37 [ talk 00:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
All the issues I raised have been resolved, but I'll let Imzadi1979 sign off on his part of the review - Evad37 [ talk 01:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
|
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
I'll take another look at the prose.
Dough
4872
03:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Toolbox |
---|
Pennsylvania Route 39 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
A peer review was also done in 2013 [7]. Prior to that, there were other reviews; links to those can be found on Talk:Pennsylvania Route 39.
Welcome back to ACR, LTNS! I'll review this article shortly. – Fredddie ™ 17:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Stopping here for now. More to come later. – Fredddie ™ 19:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Continuing...
{{Further|Legislative route#Pennsylvania}}
under the subheader. Yes, I realize I'm asking you to work outside of the scope of this article, but consider it me thinking out loud and not necessarily actionable.More later. – Fredddie ™ 02:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I will review this one as well. -- Rs chen 7754 05:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Per discussion with the nominator, I am suspending this nomination. -- Rs chen 7754 07:57, 15 February 2015 (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.
Toolbox |
---|
Pulaski Skyway ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
As a matter of housekeeping, since we have not had one of these in a while: for the review to be closed as successful, this needs three "net" support votes; unlike normal ACR, these votes do not have to be associated with full reviews. Image reviews/spotchecks/source reviews are not required.
I have two main concerns about this article.
So in short, I think this needs to be shipped to FAR based on the quality and slow-speed stability issues, and the USRD banner should be removed from the talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 07:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Which would be fine if the article doesn't need fixing, but it does. The stability/rehabilitation issues are significant, and require the attention of someone who knows what they are doing. I think bringing this article to a wider venue would be more helpful to resolve the issues; remember, the R in FAR does not stand for removal. Hopefully, this article can retain its FA status, but unfortunately I think it is beyond our abilities here. -- Rs chen 7754 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
Great Northern Highway ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
I will review the article. Dough 48 72 19:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Comments:
|
Completed review
|
---|
I will handle the image review. -- Rs chen 7754 01:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
|
I feel really badly that this nomination has dragged on this long. I've been wanting to review it, but I've been busy lately. If it keeps dragging on I will eventually review it, but if someone else wants to, feel free to take it. -- Rs chen 7754 23:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Source review by Imzadi1979
|
---|
A couple of quick comments to start. All of the footnotes use the same date formats, so that's good. A couple of general comments though:
Now that those formatting comments are out of the way, I can say that every source is appropriately reliable for use in an article on Wikipedia. They're all good maps, good newspaper articles, books, or government publications that pass our basic reliability tests. So if the formatting is polished up, this should have no problems with any future FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 05:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
|
I'll admit upfront that this review will probably be really slow and might take a month, just because I have so little time right now... but I think it's better than Evad having to wait another 3 months for the review to be closed (which would likely happen otherwise). So, I'll break this up into small pieces.
This completes the review. -- Rs chen 7754 21:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Toolbox |
---|
Interstate 8 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
Notes:
Have fun, and enjoy reading.
Review by Moabdave
|
---|
Prose suggestions:
Suggested additions: I am impressed with the research done for the construction of I-8, one of the most thorough history sections I've read. However, I feel there are two details that are hinted at but glossed over that I'm aware of in the history of the I-8 corridor. If the sources aren't there to establish relevence to the I-8 corridor so be it, but I'd request to at least look:
Good luck, and sincerely well done fleshing out the construction details. The article is well written and I support its promotion even if the 3 expansion suggestions are not implemented. I'm not concerned about the overlap between teh history section of this article and the article U.S. Route 80 in California. The two are so tightly linked that I think some overlap is appropriate. Dave ( talk) 05:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
|
I am committing to reviewing this article. I am not sure when exactly I will get to it, so if anyone else wants to do a review, you can jump ahead of me. I intend to do a content-based run-through, then a stylistic/proofreading run-through, and then a final run-through. V C 00:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Fredddie
|
---|
I will take VC up on his offer to let me go first. – Fredddie ™ 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That should do it. – Fredddie ™ 16:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
|
Review by Evad37
|
---|
Initial impressions
More to come later - Evad37 [ talk 03:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Lead
Route description
History
– San Diego area
More to come later - Evad37 [ talk 08:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC) – Cuyamaca Mountains
Sorry for the delay, I will get around to finishing the rest of this review - Evad37 [ talk 13:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
– Imperial Valley
– Arizona
Auxiliary routes
No issues in the Exit list and subsequent sections - Evad37 [ talk 06:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Toolbox |
---|
Interstate 470 (Missouri) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
Done --
Rs
chen
7754
04:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess what's kept me from reviewing this is I'm not sure that the issues from the last review were resolved - Fredddie, would you mind taking a look? -- Rs chen 7754 02:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I was going to say I always like taking a look at articles for roads I've driven on, but then I realized I haven't actually been on this one. Oh well. I guess I'll make my excuse that I have somewhat close relatives in Kansas City.
I'd like to review this, but the issue is whether or not I'll find the time. If somebody wants to review I-470 before I get the chance, go right ahead and jump me. T C N7JM 03:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
Forrest Highway ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Comments:
Otherwise, the article looks good. Dough 48 72 00:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
Incomplete reviews
| ||
---|---|---|
First review by Fredddie
Second review by FredddieI will start over. – Fredddie ™ 17:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
|
Observation
|
---|
I made one grammar change to this article last week, and have since read through it several times to try to get the true sense of it, My conclusion: It is a disjointed and confusing read for a non-local. My suggestion: Needs review by someone with local knowledge to get the grammar, sequence, and structure right without compromising accuracy. I will watch this space with interest, and will help if I can. Cheers. Downsize43 ( talk) 07:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
NOTE: While browsing the article to write this I got brave and made some minor changes. Downsize43 ( talk) 00:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
|
Review by Rschen7754
|
---|
I do plan to review this article, though it may be a while before I get to it. -- Rs chen 7754 02:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Overall a comprehensive article and I should have no problem supporting once these issues are fixed. -- Rs chen 7754 05:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC) |
I am suspending this ACR as I have
nominated the article at FAC -
Evad37 [
talk
09:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
Ontario Highway 404 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Comments:
|
(withdrawn)
|
---|
Review by Rschen7754I plan to review this article too. -- Rs chen 7754 05:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Image review
|
---|
|
Resolved issues
|
---|
Infobox
Lead
Route description
History
Future
Exit list
References
- Evad37 [ talk 02:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Support - Evad37 [ talk 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Source review
|
---|
@ Floydian: I will do a source review for this article, but first can you fix the errors? Refs 9, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21 show "|chapter= ignored", and ref 20 has "Missing or empty |title= " - Evad37 [ talk 04:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Evad37 [ talk 03:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Toolbox |
---|
Ontario Highway 427 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
I will review this article. Dough 48 72 03:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Comments:
|
- Evad37 [ talk 02:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Resolved issues
|
---|
I plan to review this article, though it may be a day or two. -- Rs chen 7754 05:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Please bear with me as this is my first source review ever.
Otherwise I don't see any issues. -- Rs chen 7754 17:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
California State Route 94 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
I will claim the image review. Dough 48 72 01:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Although this is suspended, I will conduct the image review now since new images have been added to the article and can have it out of the way once it is unsuspended. Comments:
Review by Evad37
|
---|
I'm signing up to review this article - Evad37 [ talk 15:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Infobox
Lead
Route description
History
Major intersections
That's all, looking alright otherwise - Evad37 [ talk 15:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Source review by Evad37
|
---|
This is my first source review, so please let me know if I'm doing it right or not :). Ref numbers are as of the latest revision at 06:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
Is there anything else I need to check for a source review? - Evad37 [ talk 00:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
All the issues I raised have been resolved, but I'll let Imzadi1979 sign off on his part of the review - Evad37 [ talk 01:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
|
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
I'll take another look at the prose.
Dough
4872
03:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Toolbox |
---|
Pennsylvania Route 39 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
A peer review was also done in 2013 [7]. Prior to that, there were other reviews; links to those can be found on Talk:Pennsylvania Route 39.
Welcome back to ACR, LTNS! I'll review this article shortly. – Fredddie ™ 17:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Stopping here for now. More to come later. – Fredddie ™ 19:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Continuing...
{{Further|Legislative route#Pennsylvania}}
under the subheader. Yes, I realize I'm asking you to work outside of the scope of this article, but consider it me thinking out loud and not necessarily actionable.More later. – Fredddie ™ 02:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I will review this one as well. -- Rs chen 7754 05:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Per discussion with the nominator, I am suspending this nomination. -- Rs chen 7754 07:57, 15 February 2015 (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.
Toolbox |
---|
Pulaski Skyway ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
As a matter of housekeeping, since we have not had one of these in a while: for the review to be closed as successful, this needs three "net" support votes; unlike normal ACR, these votes do not have to be associated with full reviews. Image reviews/spotchecks/source reviews are not required.
I have two main concerns about this article.
So in short, I think this needs to be shipped to FAR based on the quality and slow-speed stability issues, and the USRD banner should be removed from the talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 07:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Which would be fine if the article doesn't need fixing, but it does. The stability/rehabilitation issues are significant, and require the attention of someone who knows what they are doing. I think bringing this article to a wider venue would be more helpful to resolve the issues; remember, the R in FAR does not stand for removal. Hopefully, this article can retain its FA status, but unfortunately I think it is beyond our abilities here. -- Rs chen 7754 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
Great Northern Highway ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
I will review the article. Dough 48 72 19:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Comments:
|
Completed review
|
---|
I will handle the image review. -- Rs chen 7754 01:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
|
I feel really badly that this nomination has dragged on this long. I've been wanting to review it, but I've been busy lately. If it keeps dragging on I will eventually review it, but if someone else wants to, feel free to take it. -- Rs chen 7754 23:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Source review by Imzadi1979
|
---|
A couple of quick comments to start. All of the footnotes use the same date formats, so that's good. A couple of general comments though:
Now that those formatting comments are out of the way, I can say that every source is appropriately reliable for use in an article on Wikipedia. They're all good maps, good newspaper articles, books, or government publications that pass our basic reliability tests. So if the formatting is polished up, this should have no problems with any future FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 05:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
|
I'll admit upfront that this review will probably be really slow and might take a month, just because I have so little time right now... but I think it's better than Evad having to wait another 3 months for the review to be closed (which would likely happen otherwise). So, I'll break this up into small pieces.
This completes the review. -- Rs chen 7754 21:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)