Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Interstate 40 in Arizona/1

Interstate 40 in Arizona

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent GAN review
 * Result: Keep. It may not be comprehensive, but there's no consensus that it fails to be broad. Suggestions for improvements can be found below. Geometry guy 19:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely there must be more to say in the route description for a ~350 mile route. Not many links are used. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just my $0.02: the GA criterion say an article has to be broad in its coverage, addressing "the main aspects of the topic". Seeing as the route description provides a basic overview of the highway, I personally think it is fine for GA's sake. I could see this being an issue later down the road (no pun indented) at FAC, however. Also, it appears that everything relevant is linked, so that doesn't seem like a big concern. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, this article falls right on the border between B and GA class. Which is to say, if this were its first review, I'd probably put it on hold before promoting it to GA-class, but now that it's already there, it's probably not worth the trouble of demoting and renominating it at a later date. I agree that the route description is probably shorter than it should be, but this is made up for by an expansive and well-referenced history section.  Speaking of which, to me, the major problem is the referencing, not the length of the route description.  I haven't looked at the highway log, but my experience with similar documents in other states is that it's essentially just a table of mileposts.  Sentences like "It heads east from Topock and begins to curve towards the north at Franconia and completes the curve to the north at Yucca," and "It continues to the northeast, passing through Chambers and enters the Navajo Indian Reservation," are probably not in the route log and should be referenced with a map instead. I would like to see more than one reference in that section, regardless of whether or not it's expanded. -- Kacie Jane (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the route description could be expanded, but I don't believe it fails criterion 3a. Not sure what "not many links are used."  Does that mean that some things that aren't linked should be?  Can you provide examples? --Holderca1talk 17:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There just seems to be an unusually low number of links. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, everything relevant is linked. We really shouldn't be overlinking just for the sake of seeing the blue text. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How was I able to go through and add 5-6 relevant links just now? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose our opinions of what is "relevant" differ. :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you were just talking about links in the route description. --Holderca1talk 21:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The route description could be expanded by including more information on the forests, Native American reservations and topography that I-40 travels through, especially the Coconino National Forest, the Navajo Nation and the steep grades overcome as the road climbs the Mogollon Rim. The route description could also give more accurate descriptions; I-40 bypasses Williams to the north and does not travel through the built up parts of the town. Synchronism (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)