Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 205 (Oregon–Washington)/archive1

Interstate 205 (Oregon–Washington)

 * Nominator(s):  Sounder Bruce  06:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Portland, Oregon's bypass freeway, which took a quarter-century to build after many, many arguments over where it should go and what it should do. Among its obstacles were rich homeowners, community activists, the city itself, and prisoners at a soon-to-be-closed jail. The article has been a GA for a while and recently went through a GOCE copyedit; it was written to the same standard as my other recent highway FAs, such as Interstate 182.  Sounder Bruce  06:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Image review by Sammi Brie
This article contains seven images, all of which have alt text and appropriate captions.

All of the pictures are CC or CC0-licensed. This includes a 1980–81 photo of bridge construction. The creator of that image also uploaded two other images of construction, and all three have metadata indicating the "camera" was a 6608, which appears to be a scanner given the other images that have that metadata, so I will assume that the creator took those images and then scanned them for use. There is also a scan from a 1955 Bureau of Public Roads map, which is PD-govt.

The image review passes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

 * Nothing to pick up at all on the lead and the route description. I'll look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "At the hearing, the cities Gresham and Camas, Washington" => "At the hearing, the cities of Gresham and Camas, Washington"
 * Fixed.
 * "The section also included the first rest area on I-205, which was built near West Linn, and was designated as a state scenic highway" - wording is slightly ambiguous and could be taken to mean that the rest area was so designated
 * Switched order.
 * "The interchange with OR 99E on the east approach of the bridge was built on fill" - what does "built on fill" mean?
 * Added link to land reclamation
 * "The study concluded an alternative alignment would be infeasible" => "The study concluded that an alternative alignment would be infeasible"
 * Fixed.
 * "it concluded constructing I-205 as originally designed" => "it concluded that constructing I-205 as originally designed"
 * Fixed.
 * That's all I got! Nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and for spotting those errors. I've fixed up all of them.  Sounder Bruce  20:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by BennyOnTheLoose
This is my first time reviewing an article of this type. Feel free to challenge any comments, or point me to precedent/consensus if my suggestions are off-track. I ran a general formatting script after looking at the suggested changes - but you can revert this if it created any issues. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Consider running IA Bot to avoid WP:LINKROT.
 * Will run it when it does load. The tool seems to be slow at the moment.
 * I'm seeing a "CS1 maint: url-status" message about ref 2 (Multimodal Planning Division (January 4, 2021)) but I think sometimes the scripts I use generate false positives.
 * Not seeing it on my end. It's controlled by a custom template for the route logs, so I'll see if it's throwing up errors on other articles that use it.
 * There are more than a dozen duplicate links (these can be identified with a tool - see MOS:DUPLINK)
 * Removed all that I found were unnecessary.
 * There are a few places where public opposition is mentioned (e.g. " despite opposition from local residents", "drew opposition from the public"); I looked at some of the sources and the level opposition wasn't quantified, so I think the existing descriptions are OK as they reflect sources.
 * For the most part, the opposition wasn't organized (and any groups are named), so I'm not sure if this can be fixed.
 * Sorry, I should have made it clearer that this was an observation rather than something actionable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Route description
 * Add that Interstate 205 is in the United States.
 * Already mentioned in the lead, but I don't think readers would get this far down and not know that it's a highway in the US.
 * I'm used to seeing all the info in the lead being in the body and cited, but happy to accept that this falls under the "basic facts" part of "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" from MOS:LEAD. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "the busiest of the two main bridges" - not sure about in American English but in British English this should be something like "the busier..." (AFAIK, superlative adjectives are used when writing formally about at least three things .)
 * Switched to "busier".
 * "carries a daily average of 138,000 vehicles" - the other figures have a year attached, so I suggest mentioning that this is a 2020 figure.
 * Added year and an additional source since the original doesn't state a year.
 * "but the route was deemed a low priority" - by who? Looks like voters rejected a proposal; and "Oregon officials" seemed set on a different route. Looks more like a rejection than a low priority but I may be missing something.
 * Reworded.

History
 * "In 1943, New York-based planner Robert Moses conceived"
 * The source doesn't verify that Moses was based in New York at the time as far as I can see - maybe reword to something including "...New York Public Works Director..."?
 * I have no idea how long such a plan takes, but it might be safer to use something like "presented" (although that's the word from the source) or "produced" rather than "conceived".
 * Switched to "authored"; his position makes it clear that he was based in New York at the time.


 * "The proposed bridge was later shifted west" - optionally, consider rewording as there was no bridge to move.
 * Reworded a bit, but it isn't that unclear.
 * "In 1969, the federal government approved the Mount Hood Freeway as part of the relocation of I-80N (now I-84), which would be partially concurrent with I-205, from the existing Banfield Expressway until it was canceled entirely in 1974." - doesn't quite read right to me, maybe make the "until it was canceled entirely in 1974" into a new sentence?
 * Split.
 * "the cities of Gresham and Camas, Washington, joined the Multnomah County Commissioners"- expand on "cities" per MOS:INSTITUTIONS
 * Fixed.
 * "braided interchange" - the phrase may be familiar to many readers, but it wasn't to me. Could be wikilinked to Interchange (road) or Interchange_(road).
 * Linked.
 * "which approved despite opposition" - "which was approved despite opposition" or similar
 * Fixed, must have been picked up during the copyedit.
 * "development on Mill Plain the City of Vancouver imposed due to traffic congestion" - I think would read better as "development on Mill Plain imposed by the City of Vancouver due to traffic congestion"
 * Reworded.

Future plans
 * "ODOT plans to" - suggest futureproofing this a bit by rewording to something like "In 2021, ODOT announced plans to"
 * Added "In the 2020s", since the plans were not announced at the same time.
 * Could wikilink "seismic upgrades" to Seismic retrofit (I think).
 * Linked.

Exit list
 * MOS:COLOR says "do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method" - I'm not sure if the templates used do this; if not, then you could use one of the other methods mentioned at MOS:COLOR.
 * This is covered by MOS:RJL, but it seems that having a note in the last column is sufficient.
 * Are the blanks in the location column intentional?
 * Yes, those are for unincorporated areas with no official boundary.
 * Looks a little odd to have no state/county against the Columbia River section - is this the way such places are represented in Wikipedia (rather than e.g. mutliple states and counties)?
 * It's common for routes that change states at a water body, e.g. Interstate 82.

External links
 * What makes the angelfire.com link suitable?
 * The author is the chief cartographer for the Washington State Department of Transportation and is therefore a subject expert. That website is usually included in Washington road articles.
 * That's fine, then. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
 * That is not a correct read of WP:SPS, which states:
 * Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.
 * If you want to use an SPS you need to show they have published by RS, and you need to show why the inclusion of the material meets WP:DUE. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't object to the removal of the external link (which is mostly there to balance out the Oregon road site), but it's been used in other Washington FAs. Should it be removed from those ones as well?  Sounder Bruce  23:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article,. I'll have another read later, but this is all I have for now. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I had to revert your general fixes script edit due to the change in citation titles (which I prefer to match the original headlines). I have responded to your other queries above.  Sounder Bruce  01:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm happy with the responses, and didn't notice anything else in a further read. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Support by ZKang123
Decided to check through this highway article. At first glance, this article is pretty comprehensive. Especially in the planning phases, when various alignments were proposed. ZKang123 (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "In 2000, the Oregon portion was designated as the War Veterans Memorial Highway, and has since been used for an annual vehicle convoy to mark Veterans Day." Question: shouldn't it be "is designated" instead of "was designated", since the name is still being used?
 * Feels natural to me. As far as I understand it, past tense is acceptable here due to its relationship with the present perfect tense used later in the sentence.
 * Hmm alright.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Side note, who actually designated the labels? (passive vs active voice) Might suggest mentioning the agencies earlier somewhere in the first paragraph.
 * Added "state legislature". Mentioning ODOT and WSDOT early would confuse readers, I feel, since we're also talking about the state governments in the first paragraph.
 * Noted.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "the freeway has a scenic overlook of the falls for northbound traffic" Wondering if this section is relevant. Sounds like promotional stuff to me.
 * The scenic overlook is signed from the freeway, so I don't think it qualifies as anything more than the bare minimum description.
 * Hmm alright.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "The freeway passes Oregon City's train station, which is served by Amtrak's Cascades route". I might suggest the segment "served by Amtrak's Cascades route" to be written as a footnote
 * Dropped Cascades, as it doesn't really have much to do with the highway in general.
 * Similarly for "on the west side for the MAX Green Line, a light rail service operated by TriMet". Alternatively "on the west side for the TriMet MAX Green Line".
 * This would create a SEAOFBLUE, so I'd rather not do it. I think the current implementation is fine and could be turned into a parenthetical note instead if it's still disrupting the sentence's flow.
 * I do probably suggest putting "a light rail service operated by TriMet" as a footnote then.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "The incomplete interchange is located southwest of Washington State University Vancouver and requires some movements from I-5 towards Vancouver to be made via two half-diamond interchanges on Northeast 134th Street." This sentence is a bit confusing to me; what sort of movements?
 * Switched towards to "to and from"; basically, the south half of the interchange requires using a local street to complete the connection.
 * Ah looking at the map I understand. So basically trying to explain how to go from the I-205 to Vancouver southwards and vice versa? Quite understand then.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For the Planning and routing debate, I would have overlaid all the possible alignments differentiated by colour on one map (sketching on OSM)... though that might be a little confusing. Actually, I wonder, can there be some sort of gif showing the progression of the highway alignment over time, like it was done for a couple of metro articles? Or at least a map of the expressway with the segments built by year. Something like File:Singapore MRT Network (1987-1990).svg
 * It would be fairly difficult to create a progression map, but I'll look into it. I don't think I'd be able to produce an alternate alignments map as many of them were not republished in easy-to-access places, so much of it would be guesswork on my part.
 * Not to worry. I just feel a map might add some further clarity and illustrate the history better.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "In late 1972, the freeway was extended northeast from Oregon City to Gladstone". Suggest removing "was"
 * As the freeway was actively being extended, "was" is necessary; otherwise, it would read as if the freeway only existed from Oregon City to Gladstone.
 * Hmm alright.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The history section is pretty interesting to read through, on all various parties involved in the alignment. The public seemed to be very involved.
 * Indeed, that's how things go in the US (and maybe too much because of the NIMBYs).
 * "The FHWA, which had initially opposed the busway but later withdrew their complaints following further design changes, endorsed the third concept.". Might suggest rewording to: "The FHWA initially opposed the busway but eventually approved this concept following further design changes of the busways [in December 1975]." Might also further add that they initially opposed due to "safety concerns" as according to the source, and also why the other two (Portland City Council and Multnomah County Commissioners) eventually approved with the mention of integrated transit component in the highway plans.
 * Added a bit more, but further refinement will need to wait until I have access to the newspaper article that is being cited by Kramer.
 * Hmm alright. Not to worry.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just curious, do you know of the construction firms contracted to build the expressway?
 * They're only occasionally named, but never prominent unless there's an issue or incident during construction. Normally, they are local firms or joint ventures that form solely for the project's few years of existence.
 * Ah, in Singapore we normally hand out contracts to established construction firms. Plenty of local and foreign firms. I think for an upcoming highway, segments are being contracted out to a few companies.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No other issues pertaining to other parts of the article.
 * Thanks for the review. I've left my answers to your comments above and will get working on the remaining items.  Sounder Bruce  09:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I've made a small change to the article; feel free to revert if you disagree with it. I will give this a support once you manage to look up the newspaper article.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Added the newspaper citation, which only seems to talk about concerns with the partial interchanges (and lost motorists), rather than the busway.  Sounder Bruce  17:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright Support -- ZKang123 (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Source comments by David Fuchs
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC) That addresses my concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Oregon Journal, Oregonian, and other work params should probably get wikilinked if you're linking work and publisher info elsewhere.
 * Ref 13, Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council should be delinked if it's a redlink.
 * I only link the work/publisher on the first use to avoid turning the list into a sea of blue.  Sounder Bruce  21:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that readers are not likely going to navigate to references in a linear manner (as opposed to reading the article) they should probably just all be linked. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Created a stub for the redlink.  Sounder Bruce  21:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of the local news entries don't have author bylines attached. Are these all just written without one? Otherwise they should probably be there.
 * Many of them lack bylines, as most newspapers did during the early and mid 20th century.  Sounder Bruce  21:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * References used seem appropriate to the subject, don't see issues with unreliable sources.
 * Spotchecks forthcoming.
 * Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 18, 25, 28, 35, 105, 110, 125, 142, 236, 250, 254.
 * Ref 3 doesn't link directly to the source, but a search interface. I tried inputting the parameters (WA or OR, I-205 correspondence around 1958) and got no hits, so more specific direction is needed.
 * There is no direct link available to the document, as the URLs generated seem to change between sessions. The document in question can be found by searching for "Interstate" under Route Designation and "WA" for State, which gives two 1958 results.
 * Ref 10 I don't see the 87,800 figure for Stafford.
 * Fixed to 86,800. Just a typo.
 * Likewise, I have no idea where I'm supposed to go for Ref 11.
 * This one was lost in the website redesign for WSDOT late last year. I can't quite find where the GeoPortal (or its replacement) has pre-COVID data, so would falling back to older, archived data be fine?
 * I think that should be fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see where Ref 18 can be used for the cited section starting with "North of Gilsan Street..." The map doesn't show that granularity of detail, and doesn't appear to show the MAX lines at all.
 * Added Google Maps, as it shows the transit lines in relation to the freeway.
 * Not sure how a 1971 map can be used to cite "In late 1972, the freeway was extended northeast from Oregon City to Gladstone"
 * It is meant to be used to supplement the Oregonian article from October 6, 1972, to show that the segment was not previously marked as I-205.
 * Sorry for the late response. I've responded to your spotcheck queries above.  Sounder Bruce  15:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: I will be starting soon on a two-week road trip, so my availability may be spotty. I'm hoping that this review is far enough along that things can be wrapped up in that time, but please do ping me if there are any issues. I will try to respond if I have a stable connection somewhere.  Sounder Bruce  23:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * just checking that this is a source review pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)