Talk:Interstate 40 in Tennessee/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 21:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - Thanks!. FYI, I've just finished making a series of copyedits and minor improvements, so be sure to take a sweep of the entire article again in case you happen to have already done so. I can look at some of your nominations. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - You still interested in conducting this review? - Bneu2013 (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I try to get all my comments added to the review page at once, and this is a longer article, but I could do it in chunks? Kingsif (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - that's fine. I'd also prefer to address the article in chunks also. Bneu2013 (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Illustration

 * All free (and predominantly public domain and CC0) images
 * Infobox complete as standard
 * Good use of route map in title line (where coordinates usually sit)
 * Good distribution of images
 * Images relevant for inclusion
 * Quality of images all at least sufficient to serve illustrative purpose
 * Exit list table good per standard - am I mistaken or was there a legend to it before?
 * one question, which may need some action. Kingsif (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The legend is in the bottom of the table. Is that what you are referring to? I don't know if it was ever any different than its current state. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It probably was, even if it looks unfamiliar. Kingsif (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Stability

 * Edit history stable
 * There is a recent discussion at the talkpage that doesn't seem to have a resolution - will anything be added about the truck lanes?
 * Already done in the "Other projects" section.

Copyvio

 * Images fine (see above)
 * Check looks fine

Sourcing

 * The Route description is sourced to maps, as is typical. In prose review, I will check that the prose doesn't get too flowery for the kind of simple description this sourcing allows.
 * In the Predecessor highways section, there's a chunk of information sourced to a 1911 map ("Route of the Memphis-Nashville-Bristol highway (1911)". OCLC. Retrieved February 10, 2021.) - none of which seems to be attributable to a map, some of which is post-1915, and, checking the source, little of which is mentioned there. If the next source ("Plan To Spend $8,000,000 On Route 1, Tennessee's Broadway Of America". Johnson City Chronicle. August 18, 1928. p. 9. Retrieved February 10, 2021), which is inaccessible to me at the moment, contains some of this information, can the source be duplicated to show it covers the whole paragraph/otherwise arrange the refs. If not, sources will need to be found.
 * Most of the info sourced to the map comes from the description. I've added a few additional sources.
 * No other issues found in spot-check of accessible sources
 * There's an odd habit of putting refs inside parentheses, but when punctuation is attached to text (i.e. all except dashes), refs should go outside the punctuation. Since these mostly seem to be related to inflation, I have to ask if it is necessary to mention this at all and, if so, if footnotes aren't more appropriate?
 * Including inflation data is useful, and is most commonly presented in this form in highway articles. Although, I will admit that the cost of highway construction has greatly outpaced inflation, mainly due to more stringent environmental regulations.
 * Several sources are inaccessible either because of subscription access or because they're not online - but the references are written fully and, should someone have access to the local libraries, are verifiable.
 * If you don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com, you should still be able to view the clippings. The only sources that are behind a paywall should be 160 and 170, but here is an archived copy of 160. All of the sources that are not available online came from microfilm archives at either the Tennessee State Library and Archives or the East Tennessee History Center, both of which I have access to. However, I can (partially) back some of them up with sources on the internet.
 * Source 47 mentions the Dickson and Putnam County sections (not by name) that opened four days later.
 * A transcript of source 103 is here (possible unreliable source).
 * Information from source 158 can be found here:, , ,.
 * Update - I've provided the Google Books url for the Harry Moore book. Didn't realize this hadn't already been done.

Prose
- did you want the prose comments in sections (based on the article structure) too? Kingsif (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - yes, please. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead

 * Good length for article
 * Traveling on the interstate through Tennessee, a motorist can observe - reads as promotional or like a travel guide.
 * - Please let me know if this is adequate.
 * by the latter 1960s - "latter" doesn't mean "late", which is presumably what this intends (rather than the CE 1960s compared to BCE 1960s...)
 * It doesn't mean late here, it means approximately 1966-67.
 * with the stretch between Memphis and Nashville the first major interstate segment to be finished in the state in 1966 - what exactly is meant here? Was it the first segment to be "finished in the state in 1966", or was it the first segment "to be finished in the state" (coincidentally in 1966)? Rewording would clarify.
 * - the latter.
 * The I-40 corridor between Memphis and Nashville is culturally significant in that it passes through a region that was instrumental in the development of American popular music, and is known as "Music Highway". - I would personally front-load "Music Highway" here, and state rather than explain (no "it is X, which means that Y" kind of phrasing; we're not talking to the reader)
 * This resulted in the state abandoning the alignment through the park in favor of relocating the interstate onto a section of what was originally part of I-240. - this would be improved if it specified what (case?) after "This". It could also be reworked and appended to the preceding sentence with a semi-colon for improved readability.
 * - while the Supreme Court case was by far the largest factor, it wasn't the only factor in the cancellation of the Overton Park route.
 * - while the Supreme Court case was by far the largest factor, it wasn't the only factor in the cancellation of the Overton Park route.

Route description

 * Notes like where motorists are advised to slow down are unnecessary - despite appearances, this isn't actually a route guide. If there have been a number of road incidents in certain areas, paired with such warnings as noted in independent sources, this could be discussed. (As done later.)
 * Otherwise, a good neutral tone that doesn't stray from the kind of prose that uses mainly primary sourcing.
 * The Music Highway subsection feels a little out of place, I'm not sure.
 * The only other decent alternative I can think of would be the history section; however, this section covers more of the route as opposed to its history, and the musical heritage of the area is largely unrelated to I-40's history.
 * I-40 was designated as such by an act of the Tennessee General Assembly in 1997 "from the eastern boundary of Davidson County to the Mississippi River in Shelby County," a distance of about 222 miles (357 km). - this sentence seems to get lost at the start of the quotation. It says the name was given in 1997, but then, without preamble or even punctuation, goes into the boundaries. Could something be added in there to make it complete?
 * - rephrased/copyedited section.
 * Starting two sentences (back-to-back, no less) with "I-40 is/was designated as such" isn't great style - while adding something to the sentence mentioned in the point above, perhaps rephrase to also remove that.
 * Starting two sentences (back-to-back, no less) with "I-40 is/was designated as such" isn't great style - while adding something to the sentence mentioned in the point above, perhaps rephrase to also remove that.

History

 * the territorial legislature on July 10, 1795, authorized a wagon trail to be constructed between Knoxville and Nashville. - I'd move the date to the end here, for flow.
 * 1.09 miles (1.75 km) long - the convert template here will need "adj=on" (or "yes", can't quite remember) to make it adjectival.
 * Ditto for 23 miles (37 km) section, 21 miles (34 km) section, and a few others. Some seem to be done already.
 * ✅ - fixed all the ones I saw.
 * In Jackson, TDOT is working to widen I-40 - is this still current?
 * Yes - the first phase was completed last year, and the second phase is ongoing, and expected to be completed late this year. The final phase was originally planned to start last year, but as of this writing has not begun.
 * Need a ref for The rugged terrain of East Tennessee presented numerous challenges for I-40 construction crews and engineers. Rockslides, especially along the eastern Cumberland Plateau and in the Pigeon River Gorge, have been a persistent problem since the road's construction. - since there's also an erroneous space at the end, it looks like this was recently chopped from a longer paragraph
 * ✅ - even though, I will admit, aspects of this were already cited throughout the article. This wasn't part of a larger paragraph.
 * It was definitely big, but there is possibly too much coverage of the Memphis tanker truck disaster in the article, especially since it has its own article
 * - condensed it a little and made some copyedits, but largely left the major details.
 * - condensed it a little and made some copyedits, but largely left the major details.


 * Kingsif (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - I think I've addressed all the points you raised. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Overall

 * all points addressed, either with fixes or with responses that make sense. Thanks for the sources updates. Happy to pass. Kingsif (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)