Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Rhode Island Route 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Support promotion. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Route 4[edit]

Rhode Island Route 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: I have been working with Mitchazenia for awhile to make this article a GA, and I hope that it is now ready to become an A-class article.
Nominated by: Rai•me 15:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 05:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues from – TMF 18:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TMF
  • The lead needs a bit of work. The second sentence is "The route is a major north–south freeway in the southern Providence metropolitan area, directly linking Providence with eastern Washington County." Then, two sentences later, the lead goes into a mini route description: "The route begins as a two-lane divided highway at an intersection with U.S. Route 1 in the town of North Kingstown, becoming an limited-access freeway shortly after an intersection with Oak Hill Road. Route 4 has four numbered interchanges before terminating in the city of Warwick, where the northbound lanes merge into Interstate 95. All but the southernmost 1.2 miles (1.9 km) of Route 4 is a freeway". I'd consolidate the second sentence and the mini-RD into a more concise description.
    • Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's still a good deal of excess: "The route is a major north–south freeway in the southern Providence metropolitan area, directly linking Providence with eastern Washington County" ... "Route 4 ... also serves as a major connection between Providence and the city of Newport." It's redundant from this standpoint: both sentences attempt to give an overview of what the route is. They should be combined and reconfigured. On a similar note, I believe a good rule of thumb is to start a lead with broad, maybe even a vague description of the route, then become gradually more specific as the lead progresses on. M-28 (Michigan highway) does this to a certain extent. – TMF 07:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Condensed to "The route is a major north–south freeway in the southern Providence metropolitan area, directly linking Providence with eastern Washington County, the beaches of Narragansett and South Kingstown, and the city of Newport." Do you think this statement should come at the end of the first paragraph, after the short route description? I personally like the paragraph setup better this way. Cheers, Rai•me 13:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's very good the way it is here (current revision as of this writing, but I linked to a diff in case anything in the lead changes). In the history portion of the lead, I would note that Route 4 was not signed in the field until 1972. The way it's worded now implies that the Wickford arterial was designated and signed as Route 4 as soon as it opened, and as established below that's not the case. At least that's how I would interpret the lead if I knew nothing about the road (which I really don't=)). – TMF 18:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done - I wrote that the arterial was "unnumbered" in the lead and mentioned that Route 4 was first signed in 1972. The lead now reads: "The origins of Route 4 date back to 1952, when construction began on a short, unnumbered arterial from US 1 to the modern location of exit 5 at Routes 2 and 102 in Wickford. In 1965, the Rhode Island Department of Public Works began work on a 5.4-mile (8.7 km) freeway from modern exit 6 north to the merge with Interstate 95. The freeway was completed in 1972 and designated as Route 4 along with the arterial. In 1988, the missing link in the freeway between exits 5 and 6 was completed and opened." Is this clearer? Cheers, Rai•me 20:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Most of what I saw was good. I tried to reword the portion regarding 1972; since Route 4 existed on paper prior to 1972, I felt "designated" wasn't accurate in that context. So, I tried out a few different wordings and I came up with "... merge with Interstate 95. The freeway, designated as Route 4, was completed in 1972. At that time, the Route 4 designation was also applied to the Wickford arterial." I ended up keeping "designated" because in the new context, I feel that it is more accurate (it was designated as Route 4 prior to completion, and the logical progression of the sentence hopefully implies that to readers). Hopefully this new wording is palatable. I'm going to strike this as resolved in the meantime since the rest of the lead looks good. – TMF 03:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Exit 5" - "exit" is not a proper noun, thus it should not be capitalized.
    • Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are still many instances of "Exit X" throughout the article, particularly in the history and future. – TMF 07:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done - I think I fixed all remaining instances. -- Rai•me 11:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "began work on the extension" - should be "an extension"
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", and by 1988, the entire freeway was finished." - it isn't necessarily bad wording, but it could be improved. Also, the history indicates that the section between exits 5 and 6 was completed in 1988 but the lead says by. Which is it?
    • Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd move "in 1988" to the end of the sentence. – TMF 07:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done -- Rai•me 11:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although originally" - I'd add "the project was" in between these two words.
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second half of the description is pretty dry; that is, it really doesn't describe the areas that the route passes through.
    • Done. My inclusion of this stuff was removed when the nominator rewrote it.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, Mitch :) I also tried to make the RD more descriptive by adding information about Route 4's passing near the Hunt River and the Rhode Island Army National Guard base and through farmlands and densely populated regions of East Greenwich north of exit 7. Cheers, Rai•me 13:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm a bit puzzled by some of the new wording: "After exit 7, After exit 7, Route 4 continues due north as a six-lane expressway, passing farmlands to the west and entering a densely populated region of East Greenwich." This gives the impression that it goes through a rural area then immediately enters a dense urban area with no transition. Is that really the case? (Also, the extra "after exit 7" needs to be tossed.) – TMF 07:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes; just north of exit 7 there are a few farms (as indicated by the aerial map), and then near the Middle Road overpass the region becomes heavily populated. I removed the redundant "After exit 7". "Densely populated" doesn't necessarily mean "urban" - I reworded the sentence "passing farmlands to the west and entering a suburban region of East Greenwich." Cheers, Rai•me 11:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That works for me. – TMF 18:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plans for construction began in 1950, when the Rhode Island General Assembly used a $12 million (1950 USD) bond issue to underwrite the need for a freeway." - awkward wording. Also, I'm not sure what "underwrite the need" means.
    • Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "new" wording isn't much better (changing only one word generally doesn't do the trick). Bond issues don't create a need for freeways; heavy traffic on local roads do. I assume the bond issue helped fund the freeway's construction? – TMF 07:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed -- Rai•me 11:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The arterial was completed and opened to traffic in 1954." - as US 1? It's not really clear.
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It remains mainly intact to this date as the stretch of Route 4 from U.S. Route 1 to Routes 2 and 102 at Exit 5; the only piece of the arterial that has been significantly altered is the construction of a bridge over Amtrak's Northeast Corridor line" - I question the placement of this statement, particularly when the part of the history discussing Route 4's assignment doesn't discuss this section of highway at all.
Suggested place?Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest one: "...particularly when the part of the history discussing Route 4's assignment doesn't discuss this section of highway at all." – TMF 18:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the information to the paragraph discussing the completion and designation of Route 4 north of Exit 6. Is this better? Cheers, Rai•me 18:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It works. I struck this as resolved; however, see my new issue below. – TMF 07:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Construction of a 5.4-mile (8.7 km) long section of Route 4 from what is now Exit 6 in East Greenwich to I-95 in Warwick began in 1967. The construction continued for five years and was completed in 1972." - I'd combine these two sentences ("...began in 1967 and was completed in 1972.").
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • $15–21 million (1977 USD) - needs inflation conversions.
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs en dash. – TMF 07:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- Rai•me 11:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) has also" - "also"?
Done. (The future was originally in history, and "also" made sense there).Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Resolved. – TMF 07:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although originally scheduled to be completed by 2007" - same issue as the sentence in the lead.
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Route 4 south, but no dates for construction" - I'd replace ", but" with "; however,".
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question the need for the "Route 4 begins at US 1" and "Route 4 ends at I-95" colspans.
  • The "Freeway begins at Oak Hill Road" colspan should be changed to a bi-directional note; see Lake Ontario State Parkway or Atlantic City-Brigantine Connector. Once that's done - if done right - it won't be necessary to specify "at grade intersection" for every row.
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uses of {{cite news}} need to be fixed: the name of the paper is the "work=", not the "publisher=".
  • Article does not have any non-breaking spaces where they are necessary.
    • Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The implementation is spotty: they're still missing in some places where needed (I found one "Exit 6" with no non-breaking space in the history). I also see non-breaking spaces after/before years ("2009 USD"; "in 1954"). I'm reading over WP:NBSP, and I get the impression that while the "2009 USD" usage is correct, the "in 1954" usage is not. Further discussion on this is welcomed. – TMF 07:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done - I added non-breaking spaces where necessary and removed them from statements with years such as "in 1954". Cheers, Rai•me 13:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks good. – TMF 18:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Route 2 runs parallel to Route 4, I question its inclusion as a "major junction" in the infobox. – TMF 05:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. (includes the last one).Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made additional comments and struck resolved concerns where applicable. New issues from me:

  • "In 1965, the planned Route 2 freeway was given the new number of Route 4, leaving Route 2 on its existing alignment." Was the "unnumbered state highway" bypass in Wickford designated as part of Route 4 at this time? The article implies no - "In 1972, the 3-mile (4.8 km) arterial south of the modern Exit 5 was also designated Route 4" - so perhaps it should be made clearer that in 1965, Route 4 was nothing more than a designation on paper, if that was indeed the case. This part of the history is a bit hazy IMO; however, let's tackle this one issue at a time to make sure I understand it correctly (which allows me to make relevant suggestions). – TMF 07:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it was originally just a designation on paper - the arterial was unnumbered until 1972, when it was designated as Route 4 at the same time as the freeway between exit 6 and I-95. Isn't stating "the planned Route 2 freeway was given the new number of Route 4" clear? A designation for an unconstructed freeway can only be on paper. Cheers, Rai•me 13:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just re-read it and it seems a little bit clearer now for whatever reason. What I would specify is that the 1950s bypass went from US 1 to Routes 2/102 - if I was reading just the prose and I had no idea about the route, I would interpret the prose to mean it was a loop route off US 1. Granted, I could use the route description and the exit list to figure everything out, but IMO the current prose is a bit misleading. Also, I would add "as part of" after "designated" in "In 1972, the 3-mile (4.8 km) arterial south of the modern exit 5 was also designated Route 4". – TMF 18:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done - To clarify the arterial's location, I added "The arterial, running from US 1 to Routes 2 and 102 in Wickford, was completed and opened to traffic in 1954 as an unnumbered state highway", and I added "as part of" per above. Cheers, Rai•me 20:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is looking very promising. I have only one more concern with the history, and it lies in the first paragraph of it. I would move the "plans for construction began in 1950" to the start and include the extent of the arterial (US 1-Routes 2/102) in that sentence if the source indicates that the routing was established in 1950. From there, I would discuss the construction start in 1952 and completion in 1954. – TMF 03:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, feel free to fix.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 03:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I reworded the paragraph to flow better. A couple more things I noticed: the $12 million needs an inflation conversion and, if the source supports it, "used" (in "Assembly used a $12") should be "passed". Since the source for that paragraph isn't web-based, I'll have to ask whoever originally had access to it to check 1) to see if "passed" is applicable and 2) if my copyediting of that paragraph is supported by the source. – TMF 16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I put the inflation in. Raime probably will have to do the other.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 20:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done - changed "used" to "passed". The copyediting checks out fine. Cheers, Rai•me 02:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all issues resolved and the sources seem to check out. – TMF 18:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article currently does not comply with WP:ALT; note the section on WT:USRD if you have any questions. (Specifically, the shield at the top and the map). --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - alt text added to the route shield and the map (other images already had alt text). Cheers, Rai•me 01:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The navbox at the bottom of the article contains many images with no alt text. The quickest fix, of course, is to just remove all of the shields from the navbox (as I don't see the need for shields there anyway). – TMF 07:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - I added |link= to each image in the navbox per WP:ALT. I would prefer to keep the shields, as many metropolitan area freeway templates include them, and they serve the same purpose as shields in infoboxes. Cheers, Rai•me 11:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't necessarily agree, but that's a discussion for another day and venue. In any event, my ALT issue is resolved. – TMF 18:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns before I can support this article for A-class:
    1. Most of the route description is sourced from Yahoo Maps. There are certainly more sources that can be added if this article is to be A-class.
      Done - added refs to an atlas. -- Rai•me 17:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Per WP:MOSIMAGES, images need to be right aligned if they are under a heading.
      That's incorrect. Level 3 or lower does that. Its allowed on Level 2 headers.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3. For inflation, I would suggest using {{Inflation}} so the inflation always stays current. See Atlantic City – Brigantine Connector for how this is used.
      Done -- Rai•me 17:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The inflation template still needs some work. I will take the first instance in the History section as an example. The "12" needs to be displayed as "12000000" in the template as that signifies $12 million rather than $12. The "2009" in the parentheses needs to be replaced with {{CURRENTYEAR}} so the year alwats stays current. In addition, add {{Inflation-fn|US}} to provide a reference for the inflation template. Dough4872 (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The documentation for {{inflation}} seems to allow for the "12" in $12 million to be displayed as 12 instead of 12000000. For instance, ${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|1|1900|r=1}}}} billion = $25.5 billion is listed as an acceptable example. For the $12 million example, I changed the format to ${{formatprice|{{Inflation|US|12000000|1950|r=0}}}} per the above, but the second instance in the History section, $15-21 million, is more complicated given the range of numbers. Using {{formatprice}} caused the units to be displayed as $52.7 million–73.8 million instead of the less redundant $53-74 million. Is there a way to avoid that? For now, I left the old format with less digits in use. But I added {{CURRENTYEAR}} and the reference to both instances. Cheers, Rai•me 02:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Do you think you can move the second picture in the History section up a paragraph so it doesn't drag into the Future section?
      Done -- Rai•me 17:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Is there a reason why the RIDOT postponed the upgrading of the southern portion of the route?
      The source doesn't specify this; it doesn't state why the upgrade was postponed, only that it was. -- Rai•me 17:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Since the "Exit list" section contains both at-grade intersections and interchanges, I would suggest renaming to "Major intersections" as the at-grade intersections are technically not exits. Dough4872 (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:USRD/MOS states that when there is a mixture of at-grade intersections and exits then either "Major intersections" or "Exit list" can be used; here, since there are more exits than at-grade intersections, "Exit list" seems more appropriate. -- Rai•me 17:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Mitch has changed it to "Major intersections", but I still feel that "Exit list" is more appropriate given that the majority of the route is a freeway and there are more exits than at-grade intersections. Cheers, Rai•me 17:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Per the above, I changed the section header back to "Exit list". Cheers, Rai•me 02:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - My issues have been resolved. Dough4872 (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Good article for one of USRD's most neglected states. No major problems AFAICT. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - My overview showed no signs of any more work to be done. This article is superb and should set an example for the rest of Rhode Island. -- Computers Rock! (talk to me) 00:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC) (p.s. ready to close, 4 net votes) Note: I am an alternate [public] account of ComputerGuy (talk · contribs). -- Computers Rock! (talk to me) 00:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't use net votes anymore; we need at least one more review to close. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - becoming an limited-access freeway after 1.89 miles (3.04 km) - a?
      • Abbreviations - define it first - Interstate 95 (I-95) and then you can use I-95 for most references.
      • RD - mainlines is not a verb.
      • Otherwise I don't see any serious problems. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • All done. Cheers, Rai•me 07:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Support issues resolved. Should be ready to pass now. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/Rhode_Island_Route_4&oldid=1141870939"