Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 270 (Colorado)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interstate 270 (Colorado)[edit]

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.

The result was promoted to A-class - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

Interstate 270 (Colorado) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Not being quite experienced with ACR, I'd like to go ahead and nominate this article now and see what I'd need to improve to get this article to A-Class and possibly to FAC.
Nominated by: --PCB 00:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 00:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)<
Resolved issues from AdmrBoltz
    • You have three dead links.
      • I am having problems with the dead links. If I can't fix them, I'll remove them altogether. --PCB 00:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done --PCB 00:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your missing alt text for the map. You can use |map_alt=foo for that.
      •  Done --PCB 00:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speed limits need to use {{convert}} (e.g. 45 miles per hour (72 km/h)). Make sure all your distances and speeds are wrapped in convert.
      •  Done --PCB 00:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • More comments to come soon.--AdmrBoltz 00:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • After fixes from others, I am OK with supporting this article. --AdmrBoltz 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Review from Fredddie
  • In the first sentence, I would call it a 7-mile-long interstate. Those 450 feet don't really make much of a difference.
  • U.S. state should be wikilinked.
  • "The western terminus of I-270 is at the interchange with I-25 and US 36 at Welby, but mileposts reset at I-76." This sentence confuses me. This shouldn't be how I-76 is first mentioned.
  • Don't use interchange as a verb.
  • "...meeting its eastern terminus at..." can be simplified to "ending at".
  • First section of I-270 was completed from where to Vasquez Boulevard?
  • What former alignment?
    • I think I fixed this. If not please tell me what I need to fix.--PCB 02:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...was contracted in 1993 and completed in 1999." should read "contracts were let in 1993 and construction completed in 1999."
  • "Since completion, this segment has undergone more construction for new bridges." This sentence is sloppy

This is only the lead. I'll review the next section after this is fixed. –Fredddie™ 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finished all (I hope.) Thanks for breaking up the review into chunks to not overwhelm the page. --PCB 02:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do the mileposts reset? While you work on that, I'll review the next section. –Fredddie™ 02:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should cite the speed limits. If you can't, remove them.
    •  Done. --PCB 15:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the concurrency (road) link to the RD. Other peer reviews I've followed have suggested formatting the link [[concurrency (road)|is concurrent with]] because the it's a verb phrase and not just a verb.
  • If you mention US 36 not being signed in the lead, you should do so in the RD as well. Does Colorado have a policy of not signing overlapping routes? Either way, you should explain it.
  • All distances, even one mile, should have a conversion. For one mile, I would simply type it out. one mile (1.6 km) The non-breaking space is required per the MoS.
    •  Done. --PCB 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use interchange as a verb. Both paragraphs.
    •  Done. --PCB 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The route passes under I-76, where mileposts reset due to..." should read "When the route passes under I-76, the mileposts reset...". The rest of the sentence "...to the original alignment of the route." is pretty weak. It should be rewritten with a little bit of history. Why was the alignment changed?
  • "...which is only accessible from westbound I-270, and whose entrance merges into eastbound I-270, ..." Avoid repetition as much as possible. I would probably have said "the westbound and eastbound lanes", respectively.
  • Amidst isn't the word you're looking for. Amidst is when you're in the middle of a crowd of people. Use through instead.
  • "...suburban Adams County..." If it's a suburb, which one is it?
    •  Done. --PCB 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The name of the suburb I do not have. It may not have been a suburb after all. --PCB 22:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...at that point also concurrent..." Needs a verb.
    •  Done. --PCB 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is US 6 unsigned?
  • Insert a comma after SH 35 (Quebec Street).
    •  Done. --PCB 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...meet its southeastern terminus..." Sounds sloppy.
    •  Done. --PCB 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my review of the route description. –Fredddie™ 04:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) *"The freeway heads southeastward passing under York Street, which is only accessible from westbound I-270, and whose entrance merges into eastbound I-270, and crossing the South Platte River [7] through Adams County. I-270 enters the city of Commerce City,[8] running roughly parallel with the nearby Sand Creek [9] and crossing over SH 265 without an exit.[10][11]" This is an epic run-on sentence. –Fredddie™ I did a second pass of the RD and fixed a few things myself. –Fredddie™ 17:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rather than starting the history section with a subheading, I would write a lead paragraph for the history section. Check out US 30 (IA) for what I'm talking about. It doesn't have to be long; three or four sentences will suffice.
    •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence in the construction section is a run-on. It should read. "Construction on I-270 began in 1965. The first segment cost about $2.7 million to build. It opened in 1968, connecting I-70 to Vasquez Boulevard."
    •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When talking about I-76 before it was renumbered, you should refer to it as I-80S. Then replace the next sentence with "I-80S became I-76 in 1976."
    •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would reconstruct the sentence about the extension similarly to the how I suggested the first sentence, except put a full stop after $11.4 million and delete "however, the mileposts still restart when the highway reaches I-76." The information is repeated in the next sentence, so duplication isn't necessary.
    •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the last sentence in the construction sentence. It kind of contradicts the preceding sentences.
    •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did reconstruction of the bridges begin? If you can't find anything, I would replace " ...by May 1998. By the end of the year..." with "...in the late 1990s. By the end of 1998, ...".
    •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In February 2000, a connection between westbound I-270 and westbound US 36 was completed,[19] which was formerly not available. I-76 westbound was also connected to I-270 westbound during this time.[15][20]" These two sentences should be rewritten as a complete thought. As it is, it's disjointed and doesn't flow.
    •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I-76 westbound was also connected to I-270 westbound during this time." can be removed now since it's in two consecutive sentences. –Fredddie™
        •  Done. --PCB 16:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the improvements section says bridges were replaced over Washington Street in 1998. Then it says new bridges were built in 2002. Did Colorado DOT really build new bridges over Washington Street twice in five years?
    • Not quite sure. This seems to say so. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do some more digging and come back with a more confident answer. :) If they really built the same bridges twice in ten years, there are bound to be some cries of government waste. –Fredddie™
        • Here's the clarification. The first time the bridges were constructed was for westbound I-270, the second time for eastbound. I clarified it in the article. --PCB 22:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call the I-25/I-270 interchange incomplete. If you look at just that one interchange, yes it's incomplete. If you zoom out a few levels, and look at the I-25/I-270, I-25/I-76, and I-76/I-270 interchanges as a system of three close , you'll see that all possible movements are covered. It might be a good idea to move this to the RD and explain it thoroughly.
    •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • ✗ Not done. The three interchanges as a unit are not mentioned at all. –Fredddie™
        • Wasn't quite sure how to word it. As of now it sounds a bit awkward. --PCB 16:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Departments of Transportation cannot worry, but officials in the organization can.
    •  Done. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph should be at least twice as long. Two sentences does not a paragraph make.
    • I just got rid of it. I believe it isn't really pertaining to the topic and I can't get any more information out of it. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my review of the history section. –Fredddie™ 19:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Looking over the review so far, I have struck out what's been sufficiently corrected. –Fredddie™ 02:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just so you know where you stand I am leaning towards support, but I will wait for other comments before deciding either way. –Fredddie™ 01:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last issue I have is a reason why US 36 and US 6 are unsigned where they are. There has to be an official reason somewhere. –Fredddie™ 16:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The best answer I have found so far is that CDOT thinks that overlapped routes are useless to co-sign. I'll keep digging. --PCB 16:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I sort of explained it. Tell me if I didn't. --PCB 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm still looking for a why. What's there now just kinda says the same thing. I'm not sure it's any better. If there's no good answer for why, the best solution will be removing any mention that the routes are unsigned and then dance around why that is. –Fredddie™ 03:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Short of a CDOT policy document that states why, or a rare newspaper article or column that discusses the issue, I don't think we'll have a why. It's probably best to ignore that 8-ton elephant in the room. Imzadi 1979 → 03:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I ignored most instances of "Highway X is not signed." --PCB 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is certainly a much better article than when you began. Good job. –Fredddie™ 02:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Review from Dough4872
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 04:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. In lead, link "overlaps" to concurrency (road).
      1.  Done --PCB 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Can some more descriptive information about the route be added to the lead?
      1.  Done at your discretion --PCB 02:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3. There are still several issues that have not been addressed from the PR:
      • The route description should make mention to the fact that I-270 has a westbound exit and eastbound entrance at York Street.
        •  Done. But it might not be clear. --PCB 02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "The road heads southeastward before passing under York Street, which is only accessible from westbound I-270, and whose entrance merges into eastbound I-270," I would suggest condensing this to "The road heads southeast and comes to a westbound exit and eastbound entrance with York Street". Dough4872 03:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Done. --PCB 03:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The route description could use some more details pertaining to the physical surroundings of the route. What kind of development does it pass along the way?
         Done. --PCB 00:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the history, is it possible to find the construction costs for I-270?
        • I don't think there are any more. --PCB 01:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you sure there are no sources to verify the construction costs? It may take a little research. Dough4872 01:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have only one source for all costs. Is there a problem with this? --PCB 02:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Have you checked any newspaper archives or old CDOT documents for costs? Dough4872 03:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't believe CDOT publishes any construction costs. I do believe some of the costs are referenced to newspaper articles. (The newspaper for the region, the Denver Post, sells archived articles.) --PCB 03:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Is it possible to realign the pictures so that they are not on top of each other?
      1.  Done --PCB 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    5. "Bridges along I-270 over Washington Street were replaced and finished by May 1998, as were bridges over Washington Street, costing $12 million.", there seems to be some redundancy in this sentence.
      1.  Done --PCB 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Is it possible to request a map of the route that shows it in better detail? Dough4872 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Image:I-25 Denver.svg How is this? --PCB 05:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I would say no just because the focus of that map is I-25. We don't want to confuse readers with an ambiguous map. –Fredddie™ 12:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Plus, it's wrong. I-270 goes to I-25. --PCB 15:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You can request a new map at WP:USRD/MTF/R. Dough4872 16:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck through the resolved issues. Dough4872 03:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - My issues have been addressed. If a new map can be added to the article, that would be great. Dough4872 04:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • New map added. --PCB 03:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Imzadi1979
    Review by Imzadi1979

    I reviewed the article at GAN against the GA Criteria, and now I'm going to review it against the more stringent expectations for A-Class or FAs. I've been following the comments by others, and I think the article is much improved. I'm pleased to see the amount of press sources used now. I'll detail the rest of my comments in bullet form below shortly. Imzadi 1979 → 22:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    1. The map should be changed. I'd make a request at WP:USRD/MTF/R for an updated map. What's there now should be used in the new map as part of an inset.
      I requested a map which may not come for a while. --PCB 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Give it some time. I'm sure someone will get to the request. I'd offer to do it, but I don't have those skills yet. Imzadi 1979 → 16:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. The date in the infobox should be cited.
    3. I'd consider inserting the I-76 and US 85 junctions in the infobox.
    4. Just a pet peeve, but "due to" sounds less than proper to me. In the lead you have: "where mileposts reset due to the former alignment of the route from I-76 to I-70" I'd change that to "where the mileposts reset because of a previous freeway extension." You can leave the exact details for the body of the article.
    5. The rest of the lead's summary of the RD is also a bit too exact. I prefer that the lead summarize in general details, rather than specifics. Give the reader enough detail to summarize the article, but not duplicate it. If they want more, they'll read on.
    6. The infobox says 1965; the lead says 1968. I know (from the body) that the 1965 is the year they broke ground, and 1968 is the year the first section opened. I would insert a mention of construction starting in 1965."Ground broke on the first segment of I-270 in 1965 and it was completed in 1968..."
    7. "The section between I-25 and I-76, was completed in 1999." Extra comma.
    8. In the future section, you have "Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) plans... project. CDOT plans..." Can you mix up the subject-verb combinations there? The last sentence is a "CDOT also plans...". Proposes/proposals, goals, ambitions, intends/intention, aims, wants etc. are all good substitutes.

    Otherwise, the article looks pretty good. Imzadi 1979 → 23:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I will try to get these to these issues as soon as possible. Thanks for the review. --PCB 03:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done all, I think. --PCB 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. I'll give it a day or so, re-read it and then give you any last comments needed, but I'm leaning toward support as well. Imzadi 1979 → 16:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow up comments

    I think some of these came from your copy editor, so I'm not faulting you at all.

    1. From the lead: "the freeway was completed 3 years later" I think that the number should be spelled out.
       Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. From the history: "Two years later, another two-mile segment" needs its conversion inserted.
       Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3. I'd swap some of the "segments" to "sections" or even "portions" for a little variety in the history.
       Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    4. "Bridges along westbound I-270 over Washington Street were replaced..." could use a "The" to start the sentence. Same with the next sentence. Add a "the" in front of "bridges".
       Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    5. "In February 2000, a connection between westbound I-270 and westbound US 36 was completed,[19] as was access between I-76 westbound and I-270 westbound, both of which were formerly not available.[1][20]" I'm not sold on that sentence. I'd split it up or reword it. It just sounds wrong.
       Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    At this time, I can provisionally support the promotion of the article. The conditions are that you fix those minor issues above, and figure out how to deal with the unsigned highway issue. (I say ignore it since Google Maps shows the US 36 shields along I-270.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I added some missing non-breaking spaces (HTML code &nbsp;) to the article. In short, anytime there's a number that's attached to a word, exit 2, $12 million, SH 35, 6  lanes, etc., it needs that type of space instead of the regular one typed by the space bar on your keyboard. Imzadi 1979 → 19:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Do I need to finish up with that? --PCB 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I think I got them all. It wouldn't hurt to double check of course. Imzadi 1979 → 02:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/Interstate_270_(Colorado)&oldid=1126878775"