Talk:Interstate 640

Interstate 640 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: December 10, 2021. (Reviewed version).

U.S. Roads: Interstates / Tennessee Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	Interstate Highways
Locations	Tennessee
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Tennessee Low‑importance

	Tennessee portal Interstate 640 is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Note:[edit]

That when Raleigh's outer loop (I-540) is finished, it will be re-numbered "I-640".^{[citation needed]}

Map[edit]

The map does not match the description. Specifically, the part that is both I-75 and I-640 needs to be red. 151.141.81.81 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 640/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 23:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will review in a bit. If possible, I'd appreciate it if one of my Interstate GANs were picked up. Sounder Bruce 23:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can pick up one of your GANs. Note that I am currently in the process of adding additional sources, as well as some minor changes. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Convert the hyphen in "east-west" to a proper dash
- Done
"runs approximately 3 miles (4.8 km) north of downtown" is not found in the body and not cited
- Added - used existing Google Maps source.
  - It would work better if the fact were in the RD section and not cited in the lead (it looks out of place without other citations). Sounder Bruce 07:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph uses "I-640" too often, should be broken up with other terms (such as "the freeway")
- Fixed
The construction sentence could use more precise years
- Done - also added additional information to clarify the completion year, as well as the fact that only one segment was open to traffic for some time. Please let me know if there are any issues with these changes.

Route description[edit]

The overly-precise distances are not good for flow and aren't all that necessary.
- Done - removed most numeric figure, although changed "slightly over 1 1/2 miles" to "about 1 1/2 miles". Somewhat precise distances can be useful in certain circumstances, as long as they aren't excessively used.
  - There's still plenty that need replacement. Sounder Bruce 06:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only one precise distance is now left. I will point out that I have had other highway articles pass GA with some precise distances given.
More citations are needed, especially for the railroad carriers (which aren't listed in either map citation), topographic landmarks, and the Sharp's Gap Interchange's "commonly known" name.
- Comment: - The Sharp's Gap Interchange name is listed in the 1962 Knoxville Journal source; however I can find a recent sources, if necessary. Pretty sure the geographical information can be found on Google Maps; Sharp's Ridge already has an article. I can get the railroad information from the company websites, but it will take a few days.
"Contains" would be better worded as "has"
- ~~Done~~
  - Don't see it done in the current version. Sounder Bruce 06:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done - reworded remaining usages of "contains".
"Central section" and "eastern leg" are vague and should be replaced with general locations using interchanges
- Comment: - reworded to provide more precise locations, but did not include interchanges.
The source for the AADT does not mention where each count comes from. Is there a better source for these figures?
- The next source, although I just noticed it is dead (full disclosure: I borrowed it from Interstate 440 (Tennessee)#Route description). It appears TDOT has recently changed their platform for this; I will update; however it will take me a few days, since I am now editing from my mobile phone.
  - Fixed
Swap the order of the first sentence: put "West of Downtown Knoxville" after "I-640 begins"
- Done
Again, "I-640" is used too often and needs to be replaced every once in a while.
- Fixed
For SR 169 and US 11W, "does not have an interchange with this route" could be condensed, e.g. to "without intersecting"
- Done
"complicated" is an opinion
- True, but this interchange's alignment is extremely unusual, which is blatantly obvious just from a map or aerial view. I still feel like this needs to be indicated somehow in order to distinguish it from a traditional cloverleaf, four-level stack, cloverstack, etc. Maybe something like "nontraditional" would work.

*** Comment: - I replaced "complicated" with "unusual", which sounds less opinionated and can be used in a factual manner.

- - - The current version is using "complex", which is still not acceptable. Sounder Bruce 06:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Changed "unusual" to "complex" which sounds less opinionated than "complicated".
I would suggest splitting the paragraph after the Sharp's Gap Interchange sentence, as it is too long in its current state.
- Done - also added US 25W destination and mention that concurrency is unsigned.
"a CSX railroad", "a Norfolk Southern Railway", "another Norfolk Southern railroad" all should be fixed to refer to a railroad owned/operated by the companies, unless they are the mainlines (which should be mentioned with a source).
- Doing... - pretty sure they are the mainlines, but this will take a little bit.
  - Done

I would suggest fewer mentions of interchange types, as it can fall into OR territory. Some of the names (combination, directional T, parclo as an abbreviation) are neologisms that are limited to the roadgeek community and not useful to the general public. Sounder Bruce 06:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll cut parclo, but I think terms like "three-level" and "combination interchange" are acceptable and easier to understand.

Planning and construction[edit]

Image caption should mention that it's from a federal plan
- Done - also mentioned that the plan came from the BPR.
The source uses "Dutch Valley Loop Expressway", is there a reason why "expressway" is dropped from the name here?
- Most sources I've seen refer to it only as the "Dutch Valley Loop", but describe it as an expressway. I will reexamine this, however.
A longer description of the Dutch Valley Loop would be appreciated, as the current sentence feels unfinished.
- Can do, but the highway was largely constructed on its original planned alignment. I will have to use additional terminology that is no longer in use, such as the original names for I-40 and I-75/275 in the city.
Citations 5 and 6 do not support the claim that the Dutch Valley Loop was part of the 1945 plan. A map from the plan or contemporary newspapers would be an easily citable source here.
- Doing... - I thought I'd added these sources, but I will have to retrieve them.
  - Done - Also added additional newspaper sources to support the original name.
Don't think the AASHO/AASHTO note is necessary, as it is not mentioned again in the article
- Done
Second paragraph, sentence one: citations 8 and 6 need to be swapped to fix their ordering
- Done
"2.2 miles segment" needs to be changed to "2.2-mile" (using {{convert|2.2|mi|km|adj=mid}})
- Fixed
Citation 11 does not include the start date for construction on the 2.2-mile segment
- Fixed
The October 1977 date for the start of interchange construction is not found in citations 19 thru 21
- Fixed
Last sentence is a bit awkward and I took a stab at rewriting it: "I-640 was the last Interstate Highway to be completed from the original 1956 allocation for the East Tennessee Grand Division."
- Fixed

Later history[edit]

Comma required after "December 18, 1985" per MOS:DATECOMMA.
- Done
Could another source be found for the 2003 widening? A contractor's website could be seen as unreliable in comparison to local newspaper articles or DOT materials.
- ~~Doing...~~
  - Done
Exact dates are probably not needed for the I-40 project
- This wasn't just the date for the I-40 project (the I-40 project actually ran from 2005 to 2009) just the closure of I-40 and the rerouting of its traffic onto I-640.
  - Still needs to be trimmed down to "May 2008 and June 2009". Sounder Bruce 06:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not done - reworded to provide relevance to article, but I don't see the need to trim the dates. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The speed limit increase is also attributed to air quality improvements in the area, which should be mentioned
- Done - note, however, that poor air quality led to a reduction in speed limits on all interstates in the Knoxville area except for I-640. I don't think I need to mention this.

Exit list[edit]

An inline citation is needed for the mileage figures (even if calculated from Google)
- Comment: I would like to determine the exit locations to the nearest hundredth of a mile. Do you know how to do this?
Why is the order of suffixed exits (e.g. 3A/3B) swapped?
- For exits 3A/B, access to 3B is provided before 3B in the eastbound lanes. However, the numerology is most certainly due to the fact that 3A is far more utilized than 3B. At the eastern terminus, while the route diverges into 10A and B, the 10A ramp is the primary and most traveled ramp, and is actually signed as part of I-640 until it merges with I-40 eastbound. A similar situation exists on the western terminus. These aren't the only exit numbering oddities on this route. Eastbound exit 1 actually provides two separate ramps to SR 62; however, they are not separately signed as exits 1A and B.

Citations[edit]

Citation 5 needs a date of publication
- Done - somehow overlooked this.
Citation 7 needs a page number
- Done
Citation 15 needs a link or OCLC number
- Comment: - I found this source in person at the Tennessee State Library and Archives. The only place I could find it online was via the Northwestern University Transportation Library, but was not able to view any of it.
Citation 18 needs a more specific page number
- Comment: source material is mentioned, almost in repetition, throughout those pages.
Citations 19 and 29 need to have their access-dates fixed to match the rest of the article
- Those were the original access dates; citation 29 was already in use at Interstate 40 in Tennessee, that is why the access date is different.
  - Just to clarify, the date format needs to be made consistent, not the dates themselves. Sounder Bruce 10:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed
Citation 28 should use {{cite press release}}
- Done - also added access date.

Exit list needs a citation for the lengths column. Sounder Bruce 06:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for my first sweep. I might have more comments later, but will wait a bit on those. Sounder Bruce 02:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: - It took longer than I'd intended, but I think I've addressed all the issues you brought up here. Note that there are a few additional changes I'm considering making that I would like to propose here before you pass/fail. I will post them below shortly. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

@Bneu2013: I'm still making my way through the changes, but forgot to mention that there are freely-licensed images on Flickr that you should look at transferring and adding to the article. Sounder Bruce 07:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those images are either outdated and/or of poor quality. I'm a not sure a highway of this length needs any more than one photo. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think they'd be of great use, as the quality wouldn't be as much of an issue at thumbnail size. The existing photo is hard to make out and doesn't depict anything easily identifiable. Sounder Bruce 06:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Note that image is slightly outdated, per street view, but this shouldn't be a huge issue. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

@SounderBruce: - I think I've pretty well addressed all the issues you brought up. Please let me know what you think. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013: Left a few more comments, each marked with my signature for easier searching. Those last items are all this needs before I can finish this review. Sounder Bruce 06:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article now looks good to go, in my view. The outstanding issues are pretty minor, but not something that should keep this from being of GA quality. Sounder Bruce 02:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SounderBruce - thanks for reviewing. I apologize for taking longer than I'd intended. I am still going to fix the remaining issues.