Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 470 (Missouri)
Interstate 470 (Missouri)
[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.
Toolbox |
---|
Interstate 470 (Missouri) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: This is the second time that this article has appeared here. The first time, it stalled because the main contributor disappeared. Since that seems to be the case again, I will be bold and renominate. –Fredddie™ 03:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nominated by: –Fredddie™ 03:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 04:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Image review by Rschen7754
[edit]- File:I-470 MO map.svg - CC-BY-SA 2.0, GFDL, sources noted
- File:I-470 MO WB at I-70 EB exit.jpg - Flickr, CC-BY-SA 2.0
- File:Kansas City, Missouri 1955 Yellow Book.jpg - PD-US-Gov
Done --Rschen7754 04:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess what's kept me from reviewing this is I'm not sure that the issues from the last review were resolved - Fredddie, would you mind taking a look? --Rschen7754 02:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I wanted to pretend that the first one never happened. So, review away. –Fredddie™ 03:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Back during the first review after the nominator vanished, I considered fixing all the issues myself and supporting. However, there is a serious factual error: the first "existed" date is wrong. When I looked at the MoDOT maps back to 1967, I-470 was still there. --Rschen7754 03:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I guess to clarify my position, I do want to do a full review, but I am worried that if there is such a significant factual error in the article, that there may be more and the article may need to be significantly revised - I'd prefer that this was resolved first. --Rschen7754 05:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't that what reviews are for? TCN7JM 05:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just don't like reviewing moving targets. --Rschen7754 05:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't exactly have access to Kansas City Star or MoDOT archives, otherwise I'd have an answer by now. What I have from newspapers.com isn't exactly clear. –Fredddie™ 06:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- This was four years ago, but what I think I did was click on the link to the 1970 map, and change the URL to say 1967, and that's how I saw the older maps. --Rschen7754 06:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't exactly have access to Kansas City Star or MoDOT archives, otherwise I'd have an answer by now. What I have from newspapers.com isn't exactly clear. –Fredddie™ 06:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just don't like reviewing moving targets. --Rschen7754 05:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't that what reviews are for? TCN7JM 05:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I guess to clarify my position, I do want to do a full review, but I am worried that if there is such a significant factual error in the article, that there may be more and the article may need to be significantly revised - I'd prefer that this was resolved first. --Rschen7754 05:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Back during the first review after the nominator vanished, I considered fixing all the issues myself and supporting. However, there is a serious factual error: the first "existed" date is wrong. When I looked at the MoDOT maps back to 1967, I-470 was still there. --Rschen7754 03:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Review by TCN7JM
[edit]I was going to say I always like taking a look at articles for roads I've driven on, but then I realized I haven't actually been on this one. Oh well. I guess I'll make my excuse that I have somewhat close relatives in Kansas City.
I'd like to review this, but the issue is whether or not I'll find the time. If somebody wants to review I-470 before I get the chance, go right ahead and jump me. TCN7JM 03:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to note that I have not reviewed this article yet because the nominator expressed to me on IRC that he would prefer I wait until he gets a couple of facts on the article checked. Once I get the green light, I'll go ahead and get started. TCN7JM 06:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This will need a source review to pass ACR, along with a spotcheck and 3 full reviews (last ACR closed 27 December 2013, and nominator only has 2 FAs unfortunately, just missing the cutoff). --Rschen7754 04:21, 27 January 2015 (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.