Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Interstate 8

Closed as moot, FAC passed. --Rschen7754 02:42, 12 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

Interstate 8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: This is Interstate 8, the primary route between San Diego and Casa Grande, Arizona. I've been working on this for about 18 months, off and on, and am finally ready to take this to ACR.

Notes:

  • My usual ACR fixes such as nbsp, OCLC, inflation have not been done yet.
  • This is the most complicated article that I have ever written; extra eyes would be appreciated, especially on the following 2 points:
    • Sometimes, the lines between U.S. Route 80 in California (the predecessor and also a GA) and I-8 are blurred. Should some stuff in this article go there? or some stuff there go here?
    • There are 186 references. Is there stuff in the article that isn't quite essential? Is it too big for one article?

Have fun, and enjoy reading.

Nominated by: Rschen7754 05:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 04:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review by Dough4872

  1. File:I-8.svg - PD-MUTCD
  2. File:Interstate 8 map.png - PD-User, needs GIS data
    Added. --Rschen7754 09:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. File:San Diego Trolley over Interstate 8.jpg - CC-BY-2.0
  4. File:3-line distance sign, I-8, Gila Bend, AZ.jpg - CC-BY-SA-3.0
  5. File:Interstate8SD.jpg - CC-BY-SA-3.0
  6. File:IMPERIAL VALLEY. INTERSTATE HIGHWAY (I-8) SLICES THROUGH GREEN CROPLANDS - NARA - 549098.jpg - PD US Government
  7. File:Interstate 8 Eastern Terminus.jpg - CC-BY-SA-2.5
  8. Captions look fine. Dough4872 04:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Moabdave

Review by Moabdave

Prose suggestions:

  1. "the California Highway Patrol estimated the winds blew at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour (160 km/h)." The way this is worded, this implies the CHP estimated wind speed for a specific date. However the rest of the paragraph talks about high wind speed in general. Suggest rewording.
    Clarified. --Rschen7754 02:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FYI, the Cuyamaca Mountains section briefly mentions a predecessor to I-8 featuring a Dead Man's Curve. There is a wikipedia article for this topic, but I'll grant you the article is crap, and an indiscriminate list of curves dominates over the actual prose. I'll leave that to your judgement if you want to link.
    I'm leaning towards not for this one. --Rschen7754 20:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "A high line was used to move girders into place; this was the first use of a high line in Southern California road construction" IMO, the term high line should be defined here, as high line has several meanings and I'm not sure which one is the intended one.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 22:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Syntax error: "The federal government fined him $10,000 (about $0.00 in 2012 dollars)"
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 19:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Storm damage section: suggest wikilinking Ocotillo. It's probably linked somewhere else, but it's a big article and this is an important detail.
    FAC has been strict about overlinking lately, so I think one link is enough. --Rschen7754 20:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:

  1. "between SR 85 and Butterfield Trail". Suggest expanding. As written this is stating I-8 crosses an insignificant trail. (a similar one off mention is repeated in the History section) However there's a LOT of history here. I don't know the whole story but what I do know is this road is a remnant of the Butterfield Overland Mail, which has a strong history dating back to pre-civil war. In fact, the U.S. government's cancellation of the mail contract along this trail was one of the biggest non-slavery reasons why Arizona Territory decided to secede from the US during the civil war. This trail is arguably the origin of the route of modern I-8, the two routes aren't identical, but from a high level one can note the visual similarities.
    I added a sentence about the significance of the stage line. I'm not sure that the rest is suitable for this article, as opposed to the Butterfield Stage articles (which also have state-detail articles). --Rschen7754 23:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Similarly, the Southern Pacific Railroad is only mentioned once, and not wiki linked. I would like to see that fleshed out a bit more. What I do know is, From Yuma to Casa Grande, I-8 closely follows the UP's (former SP) Sunset Route (that map is an official UP map, can be used as a source, sadly the level of detail sucks) used by Amtrak's Sunset Limited (with the exception of I-8 bypasses the town of Maricopa, Arizona, which was a historical hub along the rail line. This corridor was proposed as the original route of the First Transcontinental Railroad (that article has more info, and sources for this claim) and is the primary reason for the Gadsden Purchase, through which I-8 crosses. When anti-slavery interests persuaded the US Congress to move the proposed route north as to not pass through any pro-slave states, this infuriated the south and was again, one of the biggest non-slavery grievances of Arizona for seceding.
    I added a few more sentences. I am concerned about the article becoming too much about the railroad, though. --Rschen7754 03:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'd like to see more history of the historical bridge (used by US 80) over the Colorado River near Yuma. It currently has a passing mention in the Imperial valley section. I know nothing about it, but bridges over the Colorado tend to be notable.
    Copied over some additional material from US 80 CA. --Rschen7754 02:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'll see what I can come up with over the next few weeks, as I don't think the next review will be completed anytime soon... --Rschen7754 20:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should be all done now. --Rschen7754 03:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Viridiscalculus

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.  VC  00:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Viridiscalculus: Are you still able to review this? --Rschen7754 18:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I feel obligated to do this, but my passion for doing Wikipedia work has really waned in the past few months, and I have so much going on IRL. I will think about it this week. If I am unable to summon the passion to at least get something up this weekend, I will release myself from my commitment and let someone else have a crack at it.  VC  23:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This review is not happening. I'm really sorry for flaking out on you, Rschen.  VC  23:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, real life has been busy for me too. --Rschen7754 23:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Fredddie

Comments by Fredddie

I will take VC up on his offer to let me go first. –Fredddie™ 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead
  1. I'll see about making a better map that shows Mexico.
  2. Rather than using the footnote, do you think the length could be demonstrated better by listing the length in each state under {{{length_notes}}}?
    Done. --Rschen7754 05:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Crossing is used in quick succession.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 05:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, but the two paragraphs don't flow together very well. The second paragraph jumps around.
    Adjusted the wording of part of the second paragraph. --Rschen7754 05:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Construct(ed|ion) is used in quick succession.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 05:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RD
  1. The four references for the NPS trail seem excessive.
    They show the routing per county. If you have any other suggestions, I'd be open to hearing them... --Rschen7754 04:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we do a combined reference, not unlike Virginia highways? –Fredddie™ 14:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, continuing...
  2. "For its first few miles, it parallels the San Diego River Floodway east." Huh?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 17:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Old Town what?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 17:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Instead of emphasizing "the former SR 209", I'd emphasize its current name and then mention that it used to be SR 209
    Done. --Rschen7754 01:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Interchanges with" is used in quick succession.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 01:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Some references are out of order. (multiple times) "I-8 then goes through Coyote Wells before entering the city of El Centro several miles later.[16][14]"
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 01:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Arizona half of the RD seems...shorter, much shorter, than the California section. If the AZ section was only 80 miles, I'd have no problem with the current length, but the two halves are almost equal.
    Well, but the Arizona portion is basically empty desert, while the California portion goes through the sixth-largest city in the country, a mountain segment, and El Centro. While I have tried to expand the Arizona portion, I'm not sure there's much more that can be added. --Rschen7754 21:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
  1. First thing. Type ⌘ Cmd+F and search for "construct". You need to mix it up a bit.
    Done. --Rschen7754 20:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A San Diego subsection mini-lead can't hurt; two sentences max.
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A map of the SD area with freeway names, might be a good thing. However, I won't require it.
    Freeway names aren't used that much in San Diego, as opposed to Los Angeles. --Rschen7754 17:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Could you elaborate how the traffic signal would have helped calm morning traffic?
    Done. --Rschen7754 17:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "The delay in constructing a road to San Diego caused increased development in Los Angeles and resulted in that city becoming the trade and population center of Southern California.[73]" I can't look this up to verify, but it reads like POV.
    Added attribution. --Rschen7754 17:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Pictures in the Cuyamaca section could ease the tl;dr
    Hoping to do this once things in real life work out. --Rschen7754 17:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "While charges were dropped against Bompensiero, Fratianno was found guilty of this
    Seems this was fixed already. --Rschen7754 17:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. After Kathleen, a new bridge was rebuilt?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 17:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Auxiliary routes
  1. While this is a case of "This is not that", I feel like if/when this goes to FAC, either the list should be better represented here or all of the list entries should be filled out.
    It's not quite complete, but I've added enough material so that someone at FAC can't say "you should be merging that back into this list..." --Rschen7754 19:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That should do it. –Fredddie™ 16:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: all replied to. --Rschen7754 19:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing: "...labor practices in the building of the Imperial County segment led to the federal conviction of Jimmy Fratianno, ..." is wordy. I think it could be refined to "... shady labor practices in Imperial County led to the federal conviction of Jimmy Fratianno, ..." Since the opening clause of the sentence established that the controversies happened during construction, it's not really necessary to repeat it. –Fredddie™ 23:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that "shady" is the right word to use, but edited otherwise. --Rschen7754 00:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I like questionable. –Fredddie™ 01:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Evad37

Review by Evad37

Initial impressions

Have only read the lead so far, but I thought I'd make some notes:
  • You ask in the nom comments if the article is too big. The readable prose size is only about 40 kb, so from that respect, it isn't WP:TOOBIG.
  • However, there are about 100 entries in the exit list – could this be cut down to "major" exits, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY etc.
  • There are some long sections of prose, forming walls of text. Assuming more images/media aren't available or relevant, then more sub-headings (or sub-sub-headings) or pull quotes could be used to break up the text
  • The Auxiliary routes section is very short, especially compared to the length of everything else in the article
  • In the works cited section, one entry is only cited once, and the other only twice. If you put the full references in the <ref> footnotes (combining the page ranges for the second, or using {{rp}}), this could reduce the page length. But only by a little bit, so I'm not sure it's worth it.

More to come later - Evad37 [talk] 03:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to get round to it on Sunday my time (UTC+8) - Evad37 [talk] 01:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Sunset Cliffs Blvd - spell out Boulevard
  • federal conviction of Jimmy Fratianno - who he is, and how that is related to the road, should be briefly mentioned

Route description

History

– San Diego area

More to come later - Evad37 [talk] 08:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Cuyamaca Mountains

  • Well before the freeway – is "well" needed here?
  • recent inclement weather – "recent" seem out of place, what about just having "inclement weather"?
  • The entire 6-mile – spell out as six-mile. Would suggest other single-digit figures also be spelled out.
  • scheduled to be complete – "completed" ?
  • "through some of the most rugged, hottest sections of San Diego and Imperial counties," – quotation needs an inline citation
  • From the By mid-February 1969 paragraph, "portion" is used quite frequently – consider using synonyms
  • another section was to open in April. However, the grading of the mountain near Viejas Grade and the Sweetwater River had not been completed on the final portion, although dirt and rocks were transported on a conveyor belt across US 80 to become part of an embankment for the Sweetwater River bridge. The way this reads at the moment is 'another section was to open, but grading had not been completed, but dirt and rocks were transported to become part of an embankment' – are those thoughts meant to all be connected like that? Maybe try splitting in separate sentences, or switching the order? i.e. another section was to open in April. Although dirt and rocks were transported on a conveyor belt across US 80 to become part of an embankment for the Sweetwater River bridge, the grading of the mountain near Viejas Grade and the Sweetwater River had not been completed on the final portion.
  • However, due to financial concerns, it was announced in September 1968 – is "however" needed? Could read better without it.
  • The portions between Japatul Valley Road and west of Laguna Junction, and from La Posta Road to west of Boulevard, were delayed – commas as indicated here would improve readability
  • and would leave only an 8-mile (13 km) stretch – "which would leave..." ?
  • The drive time from San Diego to El Centro had been reduced to two hours – is an according to needed here?
  • In May 1971, El Centro Mayor Alex Gay requested that passing lanes be added to the remaining two-lane portion of I-8 in between El Centro and San Diego due to the frequent traffic jams along that part of the road, in between Japatul Valley and Crestwood; at this time this was the only missing portion through the mountains – long sentence, suggest splitting
  • at $22.6 million (about $191 million in 2012 dollars), at over $5 million (about $42 million in 2012 dollars)[40] beyond budget – second "at" should be removed
  • Pine Valley Creek bridge – link to Pine Valley Creek Bridge
  • the speed limit on all I-8 east of El Cajon, except for the Mountain Springs Grade portion, was raised similarly – Do you know what it was raised from?

Sorry for the delay, I will get around to finishing the rest of this review - Evad37 [talk] 13:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Imperial Valley

– Arizona

Auxiliary routes

No issues in the Exit list and subsequent sections - Evad37 [talk] 06:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thanks for the review! --Rschen7754 06:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am suspending this nomination and taking the article to FAC. I'm leaving the nomination open in the event that the FAC fails, or the ACR rules change so that this can be promoted on the reviews that have taken place. --Rschen7754 02:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/Interstate_8&oldid=1138363090"