Talk:Interstate 65 in Tennessee/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 16:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to pick this review up. I tend to make minor copyedits as I go, so please review those and revert any you don't agree with. Otherwise I'll ping you when I've finished. Thanks! grungaloo (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I'm finished. This is a strong article, just a few suggestions for making it a bit easier to understand for general readers. Let me know if you have any questions, otherwise ping me once you're done! grungaloo (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Section layout is good. Some clarity issues, glosses should be added for general readers. Prose is good.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Ref section exists. One source (Clarksville online) flagged as marginally reliable, but only used to cite a date of opening so it's fine. Earwing didn't find any copyvios. Spotcheck was good, no OR.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good coverage, good amount of detail
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Meets NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No stability issues
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Good images, appropriately licensed.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
Refs 1,3,7,8,9,13,18,20,82 all good
 * - Quickly explain "concurrency" in brackets for readers here since it's used quite a bit throughout. Something like (two roads that run alongside each other).
 * I've linked concurrency (road), something I had forgotten to do. As such, I don't see the need to provide a short description of what a concurrency is. I also don't know of any other road articles that do this. I've gone ahead and reworded it to say "running concurrently with US 31" and rearranged the sentence, as I didn't like the previous wording structure. Please let me know what you think. Bneu2013 (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - Immediately what? Immediately after entering Maury County? Try rewording this so that Maury County is in the same sentence as immediately to make that clear.
 * - Do the SR 99 interchange and US 412 terminus occur at the same time? Could reword to make that clearer. Also, "after some distance" is probably not needed.
 * - yes this is one interchange. The SR 99 designation continues as a hidden component designation to US 412. US 412 was also added many years after the interchange opened; originally it was just SR 99. I honestly can't think of a good way to reword this at this time; if you have any suggestions, please let me know. I also cut the "a few miles later" instead, since the river crossing is actually closer to the SR 50 interchange than the US 412/SR 99 one.
 * - I would say "end" rather than "terminate" for simplicity. Personal style though, so not a GA requirement.
 * - "was let between", add a definition in brackets for what you mean here since it's used elsewhere. Alternatively, you could replace "let" with "built" or "constructed".
 * "Let" simply means a contract was awarded; it doesn't mean construction began. That usually happens a few weeks or months after contracts are awarded. I have used the verb "contracted" in the past, but some people object to this because it sounds like someone it contracting a disease. I replaced some of the other uses of "let" with other verbs. Bneu2013 (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - Traffic is used four times in this sentence, any chance it could be simplified?
 * ✅ - I also reworded some other repetitive phrasing. Please let me know what you think of my change. Bneu2013 (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - Traffic is used four times in this sentence, any chance it could be simplified?
 * ✅ - I also reworded some other repetitive phrasing. Please let me know what you think of my change. Bneu2013 (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

- I've responded to all of your comments so far. I thought I might should let you know about a few things. First of all, I corrected an incorrect opening date that I had intended to do months ago, but forgot. I also plan to go search through some of the state newspaper archives at some point to see if I can get some more precise opening dates for a few of the sections. None of the big state newspapers with archives online appear to have covered this. I had also originally just listed the section completion dates when I first nominated for GA, but after giving it some serious consideration, figured that this highway section is short enough that we could also include the dates that construction began, or the first contracts were let, for each section. Contrast this with Interstate 40 in Tennessee (an FA), for example, which is simply too long to include this information. I thought I might let you know that there are a few sections I have yet to find letting dates for, but I'm still working on it. I don't want this to delay the progress of this review. Also, for some reason, I've had a problem with real estate and other advertisements clogging up the newspaper searches for this road probably more than any other I have worked on. As such, it has been extremely difficult to find sources about the history of I-65 in Tennessee. Bneu2013 (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Changes look good! I think your idea is good too. I think the article as it stands already meets GA, so I'm going to promote it even without those other changes you're proposing. Congrats! grungaloo (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)