Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 80 in Iowa


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interstate 80 in Iowa

 * The article was promoted. -  Floydian  τ ¢  05:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

review
 * Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: This is probably the most important road in the state of Iowa. I'm proud of how much this article has improved, and I think it will easily get through FAC after this venue.


 * Nominated by: –Fredddie™ 16:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First comment occurred: 04:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Great job. Support. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Assuming this article heads to FAC in the future, it would be expedient to conduct a proper image review at this forum, so that it can be linked from the FAC to save time. As for the captions, all fit the FAC criteria on being concise, yet informative. With the few caption tweaks, and some clarification on the one image (the photo might be released, but the sculpture likely has an underlying copyright on its own), then I can support promotion to A-Class on the basis of the images. I'll let the other reviewers get the prose since they are already.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * File:I-80 (IA).svg should, like most of the Interstate Highway shields on Commons, have its licensing corrected. No less esteem for Vishwin60, but that graphic is in the public domain, and the license should be PD-MUTCD, with the appropriate trademark tag added. (AASHTO holds a trademark on the Interstate Highway Shield.)
 * –Fredddie™
 * File:I-80 (IA) map.svg should have its GIS source(s) added, otherwise fine.
 * –Fredddie™ 20:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * File:I-80 in western Iowa.jpg, CC-BY license from Flickr, looks fine.
 * File:Iowa Flood I-80 DSM 20080613.jpg, CC-BY-SA/GFDL license from a Wikimedian, looks fine.
 * File:Iowa SIDP.jpg, CC-BY-SA/GDL license from a Wikimedian, looks fine.
 * File:Kinze grain auger carts sculpture, Williamsburg, Iowa.jpg, CC-BY license from Flickr, should be fine. (We might want to clarify if there is a copyright claimed on the sculpture.)
 * I am erring on the side of caution and emailed Kinze to get permission. –Fredddie™
 * Still waiting for a reply. –Fredddie™ 00:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Iowa 80 truck stop.jpg, CC-BY licens from Flickr, should be fine.
 * File:Adair(IA) - WB, rest area.jpg, CC-BY license from a Wikimedian, looks fine.
 * I would recommend consistently using "I-80" over spelling out "Interstate 80" in some captions and not others.
 * "I-35 / I-80 approaching the Des Moines River during flooding in 2008" isn't a full sentence, shouldn't have a period
 * The farm implement caption should have a period added since it is a full sentence.
 * I pinged to fill in the map sources if possible.  How would I go about with the Kinze sculpture?  I honestly don't know. –Fredddie™ 11:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the captions and went ahead and made sure everything had alt text, even though it's not required. –Fredddie™ 14:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support—the pending issue on the one image is easily done while waiting on others to act, and the prose has been vetted by others, so there's no reason to hold up promotion at this moment. I would not recommend opening a FAC while the status of the statue photo is still in doubt, but the simple solution is to remove it from the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:
 * 1) Is it necessary to list when the road was reconstructed in the infobox?
 * How is it not relevant? –Fredddie™
 * 1) I don't think it is a good idea to have " bypass Des Moines together" link to concurrency (road). I would prefer if that link is removed and instead Des Moines is wikilinked.
 * There are already five links to Des Moines, Iowa. You want me to add another? –Fredddie™
 * You don't have to necessarily add a link to Des Moines, but that phrase shouldn't link to the concurrency article.  Dough 48  72  00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Except you necessarily asked for a sixth wikilink for Des Moines. I will defer to other comments. –Fredddie™
 * I'd suggest no link at all, that link is a bit odd there. --Rschen7754 05:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) In the first paragraph of the route description, it would help to mention where I-80 passes urban development and not farmland.
 * It does. –Fredddie™
 * 1) Does the bridge over the Missouri River have a specific name? Is there a relevant article to link to?
 * According to List of crossings of the Missouri River, it's the banal "Interstate 80 Bridge". Not really worth including if you ask me, but I did anyway. –Fredddie™
 * 1) The sentence "After which, the interstate leaves Council Bluffs and speed limits rise to the rural limit of 70 mph (110 km/h)" sounds awkward.
 * Please suggest an alternate wording. –Fredddie™
 * Change "After which" to "Following this".  Dough 48  72  00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this makes it better. –Fredddie™
 * Following this does sound better; "after which" is an abrupt transition. --Rschen7754 05:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) In the sentence "Interchanges are somewhat regular; 3 to 6 miles (5 to 10 km) of Pottwattamie and Cass county farmland separate each exit from the next." what do you mean by "interchanges are somewhat regular"? Also, I would suggest rewording the sentence.
 * It's explained after the semicolon. –Fredddie™
 * I would suggest rewording the sentence to "Interchanges are somewhat regular, with 3 to 6 miles (5 to 10 km) of Pottwattamie and Cass county farmland separate each exit from the next."  Dough 48  72  00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the exact same sentence as mine. –Fredddie™
 * Actually not, it has a comma instead of a semicolon and has a with after the comma.  Dough 48  72  03:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Except you're not actually suggesting that I reword the sentence. Adding a word and changing punctuation is not rewording. –Fredddie™ 03:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I still suggest that the punctuation change be made.  Dough 48  72  03:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? The two halves are each complete sentences that could stand up on their own.  A semicolon is perfectly acceptable here. –Fredddie™ 04:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The part I take issue with is "somewhat regular"; I'd suggest "occur at regular intervals". --Rschen7754 05:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I was tired of waiting. Mauer (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "US 71, which continues north towards Carroll, carries US 6 traffic to the interstate. This is the first of three times when US 6 traffic is routed along I-80." I would reword this by saying "US 71, which continues north towards Carroll, is also concurrent with US 6. At this point, US 6 begins its first of three concurrencies with I-80."
 * I don't like your exact wording, but I get what you're saying. –Fredddie™
 * I still think it needs to be reworded from the current version.  Dough 48  72  00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will defer to other comments. –Fredddie™
 * "Here, US 6 begins its first of three times" makes me cringe a bit. It sounds a bit too colloquial and discrete (I seem to remember bringing this up on someone else's ACR). --Rschen7754 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) In the sentence "After two miles (3.2 km), the routes enter Dallas County and meet CR F60, another former alignment of US 6", does Google Maps truly verify the former alignments of US 6? I think backup from historical maps is needed here.
 * Yes it does. –Fredddie™
 * Satellite imagery cannot prove that is a former alignment of US 6. While it is safe to assume so, I would prefer if a historical map can supplement the Google Maps reference.  Dough 48  72  00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "Further east and seemingly in the middle of nowhere, at exit 201 for Iowa 21, there are competing truck stops on either side of the freeway." I don't think "seemingly in the middle of nowhere" is appropriate and needs to be removed. Also, is it a big deal if there are competing truck stops and a hotel at an exit?  Dough  48  72  23:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a better way to describe this interchange. The closest city with a population over 5000 people is at least 20 miles away.  There's really nothing else there and for miles in either direction. –Fredddie™ 00:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think all this detail is necessary. I would suggest saying "Further east, in a rural part of Poweshiek County, I-80 comes to exit 201 for Iowa 21."  Dough 48  72  00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with the added detail. --Rschen7754 01:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I took a small break in the middle of this review, could you revisit this and remind me what needs to be done? A bulleted list will suffice. –Fredddie™ 01:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are my remaining concerns:
 * 1) I suggest you remove the concurrency wikilink in the lead and leave no link at all.
 * Removed. –Fredddie™
 * 1) I would suggest the change in point 5 be made based on feedback from both me and Rschen.
 * This was already done without adding "following this". –Fredddie™
 * 1) "Here, US 6 begins its first of three times" needs to be changed as Rschen suggested.
 * Don't sell yourself short. Rschen didn't suggest any changes, just that it did need to be changed.  I combined what you suggested with what I originally wrote. –Fredddie™
 * 1) I still would like to see a historical map support the former alignment of US 6 as i feel satellite imagery alone cannot do it.
 * Added 2003 map reference. –Fredddie™
 * 1) I still do not feel the excess detail is needed in describing exit 201.  Dough  48  72  17:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't figured out how I want to handle this yet. –Fredddie™ 22:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed middle of nowhere. I kept the other details for this reason: "You should write more about the physical surroundings." –Fredddie™ 00:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - The article looks good now.  Dough 48  72  16:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 03:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.