Talk:Interstate 355

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Interstate 355 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.

Contents

[edit] recent edits

I was looking at the recent changes, and it appears as though the extension is done, but I think a bit too much was shaved off the bottom. Some is easy to put back (the part beyond the "Southern Extension" section clearly should not have been removed; i'll put that back shortly), but what about the "Southern Extension" section. Assuming it was completed, it does deserve some editing, but there is still some useful info there, some of which should be merged into the top part of the article since it's now current. (most notable the junctions section of routeboxint) --Chris 02:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoa. No no no, it's not done. :) They started on it, but I can't drive on it yet. Not 'til at least 2007. The tollway's website is down, but I'll put up when it will done. 'Til then, I'm treating the last 20 changes (unless something useful was added, which is entirely possible) as a giant revert, because the right-hand side table is broken. --Rob 16:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bridge Length

The bridge is not 1.5 miles long. It is actually 1.3 miles long. See our own database: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Plaines_River_Valley_Bridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.169.178 (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it'll need to be updated with data from the bridge database whenever the data gets there. —Rob (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

Planning on nominating this article as a good article once # of edits settles to a reasonable level... 3 days or so. If there's anything notably missing prior you notice prior to its nomination, please note it here. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To do

  • 2006 interchange controversy
  • Sources of funding for southern extension
  • Maybe more references for the 1989 opening?
  • More refs! Always more refs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpangelrob (talk • contribs) 16:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I think I'm done adding copious amounts of text to the article, unless there's something I've missed about this highway that I just don't know about yet. Will nominate for GA on Sunday, 11/18. —Rob (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Assessment

Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment. GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
    (Even if was only started 2 days ago!)
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Further examination of my findings:

  • The article contained no original research. Y
  • The prose was readable, and could address a wide-range of audiences.Y
  • References were provided, and were verifiable. Y
  • All images were appropriately captioned. Y
  • No images are/were flagged as having no source, or no licensing information. Y
  • Only thing to do in my opinion, is to remove some repitition of the word "tollroad". I understand it is one, but it can get rather tedious when the same word crops up. But that's nothing to prevent an article gaining GA. N

After reading the article, I am happy to pass this article, per all my above reasoning. Congratulations to all the users involved. Well done. Rudget.talk 17:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's just hard to think of synonyms for the word "tollway". Thanks for your help! —Rob (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of older Chicago Tribune articles to investigate

Because I have not yet reviewed the text of these articles, they shouldn't be cited as of yet. When they are cited, the URL may be useful, but mostly likely not - it will be reviewed on microfiche. —Rob (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Somewhat related

Opps I already added some sources there sorry. We'll have to decide which ones are more valuable, mines are these because we can't have too many citations there. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but there might be more content coming, too, depending on what's found here. Plus the old map doesn't show IL 53. —Rob (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I used it as a temporary source so the FAC stays alive, remove it when you add a better source . —JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Itasca expressway searches

The issue is, the Eisenhower extension from modern-day I-355 to York Road in Elmhurst gets lumped in with the part from the Addams Tollway to Army Trail Road. I'm trying to figure out what came first, or if it was all built at once. —Rob (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final timeline

  • 1964-1966 - Initial portion of I-355 built on north end, including portions to NW tollway
  • 1970-1972 - I-90 completed to NW tollway, renamed I-290

[edit] Exit list

There are a few places where it appears that the exit list does not match signs. Please change them if that is in fact the case (i.e. signs have not been updated):

  • I-80 - Iowa, Indiana [1][2]
  • 63rd Street, Hobson Road

--NE2 23:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, 63rd Street / Hobson Road and Maple Avenue. The exits no one takes pictures of. However, 63rd Street is definitely Hobson Road. —Rob (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant map

The "detailed map" in the article is rather redundant. Should it be removed? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A larger map in the article itself adds value to the route description section. Most people can't see anything of value in the infobox map. By the way, the history section was placed above the route description (violating US:IH guidelines, yadda yadda) because the GA reviewer suggested that the history section is far more interesting than the route description, and I agreed. —Rob (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Umm... actually you can view a larger picture by clicking on the map on the infobox. Plus, no other route description has such a map. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, it's just an extra step that shouldn't be necessary. An east-west 3di route probably wouldn't have this problem - the map would be more easily visible in the infobox. To be able to follow the route as the reader reads about it is a benefit I'm willing to keep. —Rob (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I believe the article needs more photos. Could we add some more? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 18:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It has three good-quality photos. I think one of the southern extension out in the farm would be a good addition (before the billboards and commercial development take over), but I'm not traveling in that general direction anytime soon. —Rob (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could help, but I don't live in Illinois... ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 19:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Control cities

Does it make sense for this article to have a control city box like at Borman Expressway?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It originally had one, but it was deleted per an "oppose" comment on the FAC. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, WP:USRD/MOS doesn't mention anything about control city boxes. So it's an open question at the moment, but I'll bring it up over there. —Rob (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Er... no, wait, I found it. Sections and boxes like "Communities along the route" and "Major cities" should be removed and be in the "Route description" section instead. —Rob (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Per a discussion somewhere in the archives of USRD, it was determined to get rid of those boxes on state highway and U.S. Route articles; however, no decision was made about control city boxes on Interstate Highway articles since these actually convey information not found elsewhere in the article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)