Talk:Connecticut Route 229

Connecticut Mid‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Roads: Connecticut C‑class Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport
C	This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Locations	Connecticut
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

GA Review

I will review this article as I have time. Please be patient. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Units should have km conversions (use {{convert}} for example). Phrases such as "just a series of xxx" could stand to be rewritten. Who in Southington lobbied for the road's expansion (if available?)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Kurumi nay not be a valid source for GA status - I will ask about it. Route Reclassification Act should be cited.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I see a map as being necessary for GA status... is it possible to have one up?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No pictures - any images of the road are useful, preferred, and probably required for GA status w/ respect to roads.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
If these concerns can be addressed within a week, the article may still qualify for GA status. However, some of these tasks may be difficult and take some time. Good luck!

Lane expansion

This article mentions how 229 was originally to be a four lane highway, two lanes in each direction. The article mentions how this was abandoned for a standard two lane road. I'm not aware of when this was changed, however, as of December 8, 2012, the road has two lanes travelling in each direction from I-84 to at least Route 72 in Bristol. I believe the four lane road continues further north, and it does narrow to a two lane road, but I am not sure specifically where. --hmich176 07:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Connecticut Route 229. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6aJzyxuKC?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ct.gov%2Fdot%2FLIB%2Fdot%2FDocuments%2Fdpolicy%2Fhwylog%2Fhwylog.pdf to http://www.ct.gov/dot/LIB/dot/Documents/dpolicy/hwylog/hwylog.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]