Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Creek Turnpike/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC).

Creek Turnpike

 * Nominator(s): —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've intended for this article to be my next FA since 2008, when its sister turnpike, the Chickasaw, was promoted. I've had the sources around since then, but never really got around to working on it until this year. I think it's ready now, especially after the thorough reviews that have been given at WP:HWY's A-Class review process.

A couple notes about issues that might come up:
 * There are a few Tulsa World references that are missing page numbers. These are articles that I didn't collect from the online database at my college in 2008; while that database (which I no longer have access to) had page numbers available, the Tulsa World website does not, so I have no way of looking these up. (References which are known to be missing the page number have an HTML comment in the source. If there is no HTML comment, please let me know, as it means I probably overlooked that ref.)
 * At both the GAN review and the ACR, it was asked why the article states that the eastern extension was "scheduled" to open on August 16, and not that it actually opened that date. That is because the Tulsa World only ran an article before it opened, which is the source cited. Afterward the only coverage of it was a few photos, the captions of which didn't contain an opening date.

I hope you find this article meets the FAC criteria, and it is my pleasure to submit it for your consideration. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I reviewed the article at WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Creek Turnpike and believe it meets the FA criteria. --Rschen7754 22:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Image check - a detailed check was already done during ACR, so just one nitpick: (Done)
 * File:Creek_Turnpike_path.png - you should specify which base map you used (if any) and what sources you used to gather the additional map content (other maps just list such data sources below the image summary). GermanJoe (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Added. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Spotcheck/review - I spotchecked this article at ACR, and after a few minor fixes, it seemed to be fine with verifiability and plagiarism. I also reviewed this at GAN, where I looked over it as thoroughly as I would an ACR because I had known Scott5114 was going to take the article to ACR (as mentioned in the review). I feel the article meets the FA criteria, so I will support. T  C  N7 JM  12:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel it meets all the FA criteria.  Dough 48  72  13:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support—I also reviewed the article at ACR, and I also feel that it warrants promotion in this forum.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.