Talk:Ohio State Route 43

Cleanup needed
This article needs some cleaning up in the main section. I find no evidence that the southern terminus is at SR 7 in Steubenville, but rather at US 22 (freeway portion) in Wintersville. I have adjusted the infobox to reflect this, but the article itself needs adjusting as well. Will address this later on when I have more time. — Homefryes  Say•Do 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Maps
Maps available online show 43 continuing through to S.R. 7...perhaps we need someone from Steubenville to comment to see if these maps are accurate. --JonRidinger 19:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're correct; I don't know how I missed that. I've corrected the infobox to reflect.  —  Homefryes  Say•Do 10:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Direction change
I was just reviewing my pictures, and noticed that 43 is north-south from Streetsboro southward but east-west in Solon and Warrensville Heights. I want to say that the direction change happens in Aurora at SR-306, but it could also happen at the Portage/Geauga or Geauga/Cuyahoga county lines. Mapsax (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember that it changes somewhere near Geauga Lake's Wildwater Kingdom, which is near both the Geauga/Portage and the Geauga/Cuyahoga county lines. I don't think there's a clear place where it officially changes.  I do know that in Aurora, the road is "North Aurora Road" and "South Aurora Road" (between 306 and the Geauga/Portage line) so 43 there is signed north-south for sure.  I always assumed it was at the Geauga/Cuyahoga line, but that was just an assumption on what I saw on the signs.  Coming from Aurora, by the time it hits SR 91 in Solon it is already signed as east-west.  --JonRidinger (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * With the marker installation/replacement blitz within the last year, the change might be clearer now. Mapsax (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (Self-reply) It's actually more ambiguous now. Going northwest, the last "NORTH" is on the overhead sign in front of the west corner of old Geauga Lake park (41.34961,-81.37975), after the Portage/Geauga line; the first "WEST" is in front of the new Steak 'n' Shake (41.35686,-81.39087), just before the Geauga/Cuyahoga line.  It might be in a state of flux, since all the signs with "NORTH" had all the letters the same size, while all the ones with "WEST" had the newer-style larger "W". I guess we can check back periodically. Mapsax (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (Another self-reply) Upon further inspection, the first "WEST" (the only one in Geauga County) is not the new style, and the first "SOUTH" in the other direction is an overhead on the same wire as the last "NORTH" in the other direction mentioned above, squarely in Geauga County. Mapsax (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment
WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment states that for a Start class: "The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. If an article is missing one of the "big three" sections ("Route description," "History," or a junction/exit list), it goes here unless there is consensus (typically reached by way of a discussion on the article's talk page) that the missing section is not required for the given article." For stub, it says: "The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. Articles with none or one of the "big three" sections go here."  The article currently has a pretty extensive route description section (one of the "big three" sections) and really only lacks a history section (which for a state route won't be that long). I would hardly call the information it already has as largely irrlevant or incomprehensibe. The other "big three", an exit list, won't be present on this article because it is a state route and is never a limited access highway (so it has no exits). --JonRidinger (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added a history section so there is now no question. In closer reading of the article guidelines for road articles, a chart for the major intersections (I would imagine its junctions with each state route) should probably also be included.  --JonRidinger (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you will need a junction list to get C-class (see WP:RJL and WP:USRD/STDS for more details). --Rschen7754 18:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note, but I reassessed this to B, although it's borderline. Under some opinions, a B-Class needs to have references for the RD section. The History though will need to be re-referenced to remove the John Simpson citation. That's a self-published source which fails GA criteria.  Imzadi  1979   →  03:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DanTheMan put a lot of work into the junction charts and they look great.  As for the Simpson source, it won't be hard to replace since he uses the old state maps which are available at ODOT's website.  Do you think his site is appropriate for the External links section?  I asked at the Ohio Highways task-force and so far have gotten no reply.  It seems like a good additional source even if it is self-published. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied at the task force page twice, but two issues. I use Chris Bessert's Michigan Highways as an external link, even though in his case, I could use the site as a full source. (The Library of Michigan, Grand Rapids Public Library, the former chief archivist for the State of Michigan Archives and MDOT all refer me there, and the site has been quoted in the Detroit Free Press and the Traverse City Record-Eagle.) When I do link to it, as I'm slowly switching everything over, it is to "M-# at Michigan HIghways" with the second link to "M-# at Michigan Highway Ends". I don't quote the website's author by name, I quote the website's name. In the Simpson case, the fact that it's been almost nine years since the last update does not speak well to its reliability at all. DOTs don't change stuff every day, but surely things have been changed in the last nine years. At the very least, he could/should be scanning through what's posted to verify its all still accurate, and then updating the date. A second side thought, but his site is hosted on Prodigy, not a separate domain name. A separate domain name needs to be renewed, while the Prodigy hosting probably does not. That also makes it look like an abandoned website that's only still around because its part of his personal Internet account. All of these things tell me that it's not the best image to put forward as an external link.  Imzadi  1979   →  04:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, JR. Glad to help you out in the upgrading of the OH 43 page to a B.  My main goal has been to improve the overall quality of the Ohio Highways project, so I've been clearing out stubs as much as possible...although it's been a one-man show, for the most part.  Imzadi stated all the exact reasons why I've been de-listing the Simpson site as an EL...in a way, it points back to quality issue.  At the pace we're going right now, the only pages that would most likely have it as an EL would be 43, 59, 261, 306, and any other ones on your watch list. DanTheMan474 (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. As for the website, I appreciate your comments, but do wonder why you couldn't have just replied as such when I asked earlier this month instead of deleting it.  In regards to the site itself, the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Ohio.  I asked so a consensus can be established.  --JonRidinger (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't have been a big deal. Sorry if it angered you in any way.  I will not touch 43, 59, 261, 306 or any of the other pages you watch going forward, in this regard. DanTheMan474 (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope I didn't sound like it was a big deal. I'm really not crazy, I just want consistency and consensus. :) If the consensus is that it's not appropriate, then so be it.  I obviously feel it is a worthwhile link for further information, but I'm not going to go crazy over it.  I've found it to be a great guide in analyzing the maps and confirming the history he wrote (mostly the early history) as I've written and checked some of the routes, which is why I was curious to see it removed.  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)