Talk:Connecticut Route 190/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) 22:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Source 19 looks like a WP:SPS and cannot be used.

Done

Route description

where access is - to the river?

Done

the road becomes known as Main Street, as it - no comma should be used there

Done

Exit 73 - should be lowercase

Exits are usually in uppercase
History

In 1922... - not sure you can get that from source 5, a 1926 map.

The source still applies to the 1922 changes. I added another source

Ditto with "The Thompsonville Bridge was built in 1892" (but it looks like source 6 might work for that one).

Done

via Somers center - the center of Somers

Done

Modern Route 190 - shouldn't repeat it right after it was used in the previous sentence.

Done

The original Route 190 used modern Route 168 to reach Route 75 then, after a brief overlap with Route 75, it used modern Route 190 to reach the west bank of the Connecticut River - need a semicolon before then since this combines two sentences

Done

Source 8 is a deadlink

Fixed

The last few sentences of paragraph 3 have a lot pointing to the bridge log. I don't see how the years can be sourced to the bridge log, but then I could be missing something.

The Buckley Highway was mentioned in the log as was the Wilbur cross change,.

Mentioned, yes, but I see no years in the bridge log. --Rs chen 7754 04:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Added sources. The years of news publishings confirm. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is closer now. If you could find some source for the 1932 renumbering date and what it did to the route I think we would be good to go. (The main issue with using maps in the history section is that they can only prove that a highway was following a certain route in year X. You can't use a map made in year X to prove that the route was the same in year X+1.) --Rs chen 7754 05:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Added a source. Keep in mind, 1932 sources are hard to come by, but lucky the Courant came through. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, the issue is with the sentence starting "Old State Highway 105 was designated..." I sympathize with the difficulty of digging through newspaper archives, but unfortunately our sourcing rules don't make any exceptions based on the year. --Rs chen 7754 04:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

now aging - remove now

Done

Not too long after the relocation, a freeway connection to Interstate 91 was constructed as part of a grander plan for expressways in the Greater Hartford area. - okay, but then we suddenly change topics to what happened with I-190, which seems abrupt to me.

I don't see an issue with it. Not much can be changed. Any ideas?

There was some opposition to the plan - do we know what it was based on?

Residential issues and construction. The usually highway protest.

Route 190, which was to be relocated to a more southerly alignment, was to cross under Route 159 at Canal Road - I feel that there is a more concise/clear way to say this.

Done

Funds - don't start two consecutive sentences with the same word.

Done

the scope of the project was pulled back - this doesn't really add anything considering the next few sentences

Done

The opening of the Route 190 expressway was delayed by a strike until later that year. - okay, but do we have a source for when it actually opened?

Honestly, I could not find a single source of the year. I see conflicting sources for this so I will remove the strike mention. If the strike was major, it would have gained more coverage.
Special designations

I'm not sure why this is a separate section that can't be included in the RD.

Moved

I think this could still pass but there is quite a bit of work needed here. On hold for the usual 7 days. --Rs chen 7754 04:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Thank you for taking this up. I'll address them all overtime. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: I have addressed most of your issues and left comments on some. Thank you again. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great news

@Rschen7754: I have great news. I have a newspapers.com account with The Wikipedia Library and I can now provide links for the courant cites. This also allows the 1932 part to have a ref! AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review

Because there have been substantial changes made I will be revisiting the history section.

"In 1922" - this is sourced to a 1926 map.

Done

"Route 20 was extended east to the Wilbur Cross Highway" - I am still uncomfortable with using a bridge log to source this sentence. That being said, you could probably delete this sentence and it would not have much of an effect on the rest of the article, as it is part of a three-sentence setup for "The portion of Route 20 east"...

Done

"Interstate 91" - generally you should say Interstate xx (I-xx) the first time any Interstate used in the article, and I-xx every time an Interstate is referenced thereafter.

Done

"I-190 opened to traffic in 1983" - this is sourced to a document written in 1975.

Done

I will also note that comments like Most of modern Route 190 are really cutting it close. The 1926 map doesn't know anything about modern Route 190. To make that determination you have to compare it to a map of the present day - but now you are bordering on WP:SYNTH. Some rephrasing to more closely match what the map says would be preferable. --Rs chen 7754 05:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Fixed the displayed issues. I'll do some looks to eliminate SYNTH. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a look at some other GAs I don't think the borderline SYNTH issue should hold up this article for GA, though if you plan to take the article further I would advise rewording those parts. Therefore I will pass it. --Rs chen 7754 03:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Thank you. I appreciate it. You have been a great help and reviewer. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]