Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Legacy Parkway
- 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.
Legacy Parkway
[edit]Toolbox |
---|
Legacy Parkway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: Having just passed its Good Article Nomination, I believe that Legacy Parkway is ready for the next step.
- Nominated by: AdmrBoltz 01:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 01:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
[edit]Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Comments:
|
- Support - Article looks good. Dough4872 03:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have done a bit more digging on history and have added it in. I had not thought to search for the previous name of the highway. --AdmrBoltz 18:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Image review by Philroc
[edit]File:Utah SR 67.svg PD-MUTCD-UT
File:Legacy parkway.png Non-free with appropriate fair use rationale
File:Legacy Parkway map.png PD-self
- The map is actually not OK since it doesn't have GIS sources, and its original creator has gone dark. I've requested a new map at the MTF. --AdmrBoltz 21:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- New map is done and cited. –Fredddie™ 21:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- The map is actually not OK since it doesn't have GIS sources, and its original creator has gone dark. I've requested a new map at the MTF. --AdmrBoltz 21:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
File:LegacyParkway3.jpg CC-BY 2.0
All images check out. Philroc (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Review by Fredddie
[edit]Review by Fredddie
|
---|
I'll give it a look-see. –Fredddie™ 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Support Talking about the EIS adds the depth I was looking for. I do have one more thing, but obviously it's not going to hold you up. Above, you mentioned that nobody calls it the Wasatch Weave. I'd like to see that mentioned in the article and backed up by a reference. → "This interchange is officially called the Wasatch Weave, but is almost never referred to as such." But if you can't, you can't, no big deal. –Fredddie™ 21:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is citing that. Since its not called that... its hard to cite that its not called that :P. Though I did want it to be named the Chuck Norris Highway... The only four hits in ProQuest for the Weave are from the day or the day after the intersection was named. --AdmrBoltz 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Figured. NBD. –Fredddie™ 21:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is citing that. Since its not called that... its hard to cite that its not called that :P. Though I did want it to be named the Chuck Norris Highway... The only four hits in ProQuest for the Weave are from the day or the day after the intersection was named. --AdmrBoltz 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Spotcheck by TCN7JM
[edit]Spotcheck by TCN7JM
|
---|
I reviewed this article at GAN, so I'll do the spotcheck. I will start it after Fredddie's concerns are addressed. TCN7JM 21:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright. As usually I'll review a quarter of the references. I can't review 6.5 refs, so I'll round up to seven. They will be, as of this revision:
I'll start on this immediately. TCN7JM 00:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
|
- Support – I see that one issue was fixed. TCN7JM 01:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think we'd better promote this one, because it has 3 Supports, an image review, and a spotcheck, both of which went well. Philroc (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- ... no, it only has 2 supports, a support as part of an image review or spotcheck does not count. --Rschen7754 17:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think we'd better promote this one, because it has 3 Supports, an image review, and a spotcheck, both of which went well. Philroc (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
|
---|
I will take the last review. --Rschen7754 02:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Should be a support once these issues are resolved. --Rschen7754 03:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 01:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above 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.