Talk:Creek Turnpike

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Creek Turnpike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ugh...I wanted to review this now, but the length is...well, long. Also, I just got done reviewing another article, so maybe later tonight or tomorrow. TCN7JM 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, seeing as you're undoubtedly taking this to ACR right after I pass this, I'm going to scrutinize the article a bit more.

Infobox

• No shield exists for the Muskogee Turnpike?
  • OTA shields are copyrighted, so they can only appear on the article corresponding to the turnpike they belong to. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• Using "northeastern terminus" in the lead and "east end" in the infobox is inconsistent. Is this accepted in recognized content? If not, I'd say use either one or the other.
  • I did that for added clarity since the route is sort of L-shaped. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• The last sentence of the first paragraph doesn't read that well, to be honest. Consider rewording it or splitting it.
  • Altered to remove "County" from the name of each county. Better? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Much so. TCN7JM 04:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Route description

• What kind of interchange does the Creek Turnpike share with I-44?
  • I am not sure what the name of this kind of interchange is; the Creek Turnpike effectively splits away from/merges into the Turner. Hopefully the explanatory note added will suffice.
    • Looks good to me. TCN7JM 04:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Why isn't it mentioned that I-44 is also the Turner Turnpike?
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Why is there a random map of the world in the upper-left corner of the map in this section? It's not a locator, so what does that add?
  • It is meant to be a locator; there are a few white pixels on that inset that are the locator box. The only problem is that it's not that visible because the map is zoomed in so far. Happy5214 is going to set me up with a better version of this map after some changes he made to the OSM data propagate to the map renderer. After that's done, I may be able to make the locator more visible. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Although it's quite obvious, you should mention which terminus this is for US-169.
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• The use of "then" as a transition twice in the one Broken Arrow sentence reads poorly, especially since it's also used once in the next sentence.
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• In the third paragraph, you start three straight sentences with "It/The highway then".
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Is it absolutely necessary to put the single law enforcement sentence in a standalone paragraph?
  • Probably not. I would normally put this in a services section, but the Creek has no service plazas, so creating such a section would be silly. Which paragraph would you think would be a good merge target? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't find a good place to merge it. I would put the final two paragraphs into a section lead if the section wasn't so small, but I'm not sure that would work on this short an RD. TCN7JM 03:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I will probably augment this paragraph with NHS data when I can scrounge it up. Will that work, or be too random of a collection of things to go in one paragraph? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
        • That seems a bit too random. This is good info to have in the article, it's just unclear where to put it. In the end, maybe it will have to stay in it's own paragraph. TCN7JM 04:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Planning for the first segment

• Remember to use OTA in parentheses first before using it alone as an abbreviation.
  • I added OTA and ODOT parenthesis in the lead (since I seem to have forgotten to include maintenance info in the lead for some reason). Is this sufficient or will I need to include it again in the article body? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Inclusion in the lead is sufficient. TCN7JM 04:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Missing period after the sentence about the Jersey-barrier median.
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Tulsa requests changes

• I'd convert the 100 feet to meters rather than kilometers.
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• minimize impact on the surrounding area
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Construction

• Why is "notice to proceed" in quotes? Plagiarism issue?
  • That, and I'm not entirely sure whether there is such a thing as a formal notice to proceed, or if it's just a letter OTA sent saying "Y'all can start buildin' now, if'n ya want to." —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• 3.6 miles → 3.6-mile
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unless the estimates were exactly double what was expected, I'd use some kind of modifying adjective.
  • The source gave the expected estimates as a range, from 3,000 to 5,000. Not really sure how to resolve, since 3,000 doubled is 6,000 (actual was more than double) and 5,000 doubled is 10,000 (actual was less than double). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Use "approximately" or "about". TCN7JM 04:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
      •  duh —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Opposition

• Comma after 1989 in the second sentence.
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• In the sentence about the Bank of Oklahoma protest, it looked at first that "closed" was being used as an adjective instead of a verb. I would reword the sentence to avoid this issue.
  • I've done a reword. Is this better? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah. That was a bit of a nitpick on my part, but thanks for changing it. TCN7JM 04:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comma after 1990 in the last sentence of the sixth paragraph.
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Environmental concerns

• Is there a total cost for the work the Norman firm did or just the cost per tree?
  • The source doesn't give a total, although it does split the cost per tree into how much was for the planting and how much was for the maintenance. I added them since I figured that would be what the reader was ultimately interested in. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Extensions

• Comma after 1996 on the up-or-down vote sentence.
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• an 1998 turnpike package → a 1998 turnpike package
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• 25.9 miles → 25.9-mile
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comma after 1999 in the tornado outbreak link.
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• You say when the last segment was scheduled to open, but not when it actually did. I'm assuming the two dates are the same, but a confused reader might think differently.
  • Funnily enough, the Tulsa World didn't run an article on when it opened. Before it opened was the source cited, then afterward the only coverage of it was a few photos, the captions of which didn't contain an opening date. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Tolls

• Passengers pay the tolls if you're in a two-axle vehicle but drivers pay them if you're in a vehicle with more than two axles?
  • Technically the driver is a passenger, like a square is a rectangle. Also, this is part of my plan to make people riding with me cough up money when I'm on the Creek Turnpike by pointing at this article and saying Wikipedia says so... No, seriously, it was an ill-advised attempt to vary sentence structure. Subbed "passengers" out. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• I also note the inconsistency in punctuation in those first two sentences. Easily-avoidable parentheses are used in the first sentence, while commas, which look neater, are used in the second.
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Exit list (Added after originally put on hold)

• US-169 should be in the destinations column for the first US-64 exit, seeing as it is the highway's southern terminus.
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, I see I misconstrued this intersection a bit. Add begins in the direction parameter for US-169 and mention the concurrency in the notes. TCN7JM 04:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• "Eastern" shouldn't be capitalized in the US-64/US-169 notes column.
  •  Done —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This was a very interesting article to read! I had no idea so much opposition existed for such a short turnpike. Well, that's it for my review. I'm putting the article on hold for you to address these concerns. TCN7JM 03:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The changes recently made to the article make me feel that this one meets the Good Article criteria. I'm passing it. TCN7JM 05:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding exit numbers

Why do the exit numbers only begin in Tulsa? --hmich176 13:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

For whatever reason, exit numbers were only posted on the most recent stretch of highway to open. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Update?

This article makes it clear that there was fierce opposition to the highway's construction. What's the word these days? Have locals come to terms with the road, or is it still controversial and a sore spot? Is it discussed at all in more recent sources? Brutannica (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the highway's completion, the sources settle down into the usual things: coverage of accidents and notices of construction projects. I would imagine most people see little point in protesting something that has already been built, especially since any serious attempt to do so would probably bring out tons of opposition from those who have found the road useful. Note also that Tulsans Against Turnpikes only had 220 members. Many of these people opposed the road because it was going to require OTA to buy out their property. Now that the buyout has come to pass, they probably have moved elsewhere and the road no longer affects them. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Completely Automated

This is not correct. The toll plaza between US-75 and Elm, at least, has human toll collectors (as I have paid them on multiple occasions). I don't know how to properly word this to edit the article, nor to cite this, so I guess the best I can do is make the notation here. 107.221.178.111 (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creek Turnpike. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20081011053021/http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc to http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Creek Turnpike. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/new-creek-turnpike-interchange-set-open-broken-arr/nN79x/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618145329/http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/Creek-Turnpike-construction-begins-Monday-for-expansion-from-Highway-75-to-Memorial-in-south-Tulsa to http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/Creek-Turnpike-construction-begins-Monday-for-expansion-from-Highway-75-to-Memorial-in-south-Tulsa
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227235814/http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Creek-Turnpike-opening-after-construction-project/iOU6mhJ_q0yhInx1v80ViQ.cspx to http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Creek-Turnpike-opening-after-construction-project/iOU6mhJ_q0yhInx1v80ViQ.cspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)