Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 15 in Arizona


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

The result of the discussion was promote to A-class.

Interstate 15 in Arizona
review
 * Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: It was promoted to GA awhile back and I have expanded a bit more and did some polishing.
 * Nominated by: Holderca1talk 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues mentioned below have been resolved to my satisfaction. Dave (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This site has some interesting history tidbits about I-15 in AZ that are not covered in the history section of this article. For example, assuming they are correct, AZ stopped construction of I-15 in protest when federal funds were cut. They had to be persuaded to resume construction by officials in Utah. Utah had already finished the section at the state line and was preparing to shut down the old US-91. IMO, these claims should be investigated, and if true mentioned in the wikipedia article too.Dave (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it, AARoads will sometimes cite their sources, not the case here. Hopefully there will be something out there, it sounds like a good bit of history to include.  --Holderca1talk 11:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I may have found something, but it is in a 40 year old newspaper article that I need to purchase a subscription to get. Does anyone have a subscription to newspaperarchive.com off chance?  --Holderca1talk 14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For my article that was just in ACR (Interstate 70 in Utah) I had to shell out a few bucks and buy 2 articles from nl.newsbank.com. Newsbank does encourage a subscription, but will sell a single article. I was able to get the relevant information from a 3rd newspaper article to display in the teaser paragraph that is displayed by refining the search terms several times.Dave (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can give me the details I'll fiddle with the search and hopefully extract the needed text. --NE2 19:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some details here, it also appears that Utah gave Arizona some of their highway funds to help build the portion through the gorge. Here is the article I am trying to get: . --Holderca1talk 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 15 in Arizona - I'm not sure if that's the whole article but there's nothing missing from the middle except numbers. --NE2 20:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have found a bit more history, let me know what you think. --Holderca1talk 20:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I say well done. One final question. The infobox has "1950s" for date formed. IMO either a specific year should be listed, or this should be removed. Also, I don't think this article is a problem, but I have a nomination at FAC and a lot of articles in line before my nom are getting beat up over multiple sources in one sentence, there are two such instances in this article. If you want I'll keep you in the loop if this becomes a problem on my nomination.Dave (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the year, the best year I could find with a reliable source was when the first construction started, so I went with that. I don't really see what is wrong with having multiple sources for a single sentence.  Which FAC are you referring to?  I looked at the comments for I-70 in Utah and didn't see anything, but maybe I just missed it.  --Holderca1talk 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with it either. When I first nominated I-70 in UT for FAC, I was checking the comments on the articles in line ahead of my nomination to see what I was in for. For the articles at the end of the queue (since removed) this was a common thing people were getting dinged for. I should probably note that some were extreme, I don't remember which nominations but a few had 4 or even 5 sources listed for a single sentence. It seems to have fizzled, as none of the articles now at the end of the queue are getting dinged for this. This was not a request to change anything, just an offer to keep you in the loop should it come up again. If you're not going for FAC on this article you probably could care less anyways =-)Dave (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. No complaints here, and I do believe that makes four... --  K é iryn talk 16:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.