Talk:Interstate 476

Interstate 476 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 28, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
March 8, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
June 11, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
May 11, 2009	WikiProject A-class review	Demoted
June 2, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
Current status: Good article

U.S. Roads: Interstates / Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

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 articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics

Interstate Highways

Locations

Pennsylvania

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.

Article recognition:

	This article was the selected article of the U.S. Roads Portal in April 2007.
	A fact from this article was featured on the Did you know? section of the U.S. Roads Portal in January 2011, April 2020.
	This article was the selected article of the Pennsylvania task force in May 2014.

Philadelphia Mid‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia 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.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lehigh Valley Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lehigh Valley, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Lehigh Valley region of Pennsylvania 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.Lehigh ValleyWikipedia:WikiProject Lehigh ValleyTemplate:WikiProject Lehigh ValleyLehigh Valley articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed deletion of construction chronology

SECTION 300 - CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY IN MARPLE WOODS AREA-- Is there any good reason to have this unexplained, non sequitur, and hard-to-read detailed history of the procedures from the construction of a short segment of this highway? Unless someone posts a plausible defense of this section in the next few days, I will delete this section. Spikebrennan 02:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast Extension merge

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions}

Support. I-476 and the NE extension are the one and same north of I-276. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Northeast Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike already redirects to Interstate 476. Also, the PA Turnpike Commission seems to use the term "Northeast Extension" more often than "Northeastern Extension" (and certainly more often than "North Eastern Extension", which is definitely wrong).Spikebrennan 03:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per above --Mhking 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for the same reasons listed above. -TheDude2006 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, enough consensus has been reached; merging now. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this discussion is not about the merge proposed January 6, 2006. To start a discussion on that merge, please do so in a new section below. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why north to south?

When the infobox was cleaned up, why were the junctions reorganized from north to south, in violation of common practice of using south to north? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Didn't realize that the junctions were listed north to south previously. In any case, I've fixed the order to read south-north. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some improvements

I think this page could use some improvement and cleaning up. It mostly consists of information on the Blue Route with a few Northeast Extension-related bits tacked on, however now that Northeast Extension redirects here I think more information on the history Northeast Extension should be integrated somehow. Also a lot of stuff could be moved around or consolidated; the Description section pretty much just repeats info described later in the article plus some weird nonsense about I-476 "becoming part of a multi-county beltway" (?). Perhaps History should be where Description is now. Same with the Notes section, everything else in the section is found somewhere in the article, except for the one bullet point about it being longer than I-12/I-19/etc. which would still be better integrated elsewhere. (One thing that also puzzles me is why the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project is mentioned no less than three times in the article, including in "See also"? It's not related to either the Blue Route or the Northeast Extension at all.) Krimpet 12:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the History section into separate sections for the Blue Route and the Northeast Extension. I also added a less rambling route description into the beginning of the article, and integrated the Notes section into the rest of the article. Krimpet 03:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The road to featured article status

I'd like to see this article along the long road to featured article status. It was rated as a stub last September when it looked like this, an apt rating IMO, but I'd say it's greatly improved since then. I'm curious, does anyone have any ideas or suggestions on how this article could be improved further? Krimpet 04:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A route description would work wonders for this article. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I also requested a map for the article, which I think would be good to have. Krimpet 05:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like where this article is going. I guess my only comment at this point would be to expand the lead a bit to cover the history of I-476 - not in-depth, but an overview. An expanded lead will help to push the route description farther down, and will make the article appear more robust. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's B-class now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I expanded the lead as you said, including information on the Blue Route controversy (and a juicy quote from the Inquirer) to encourage the reader to read on as per WP:LEAD. I figure I'll follow in the footsteps of Interstate 290 (Illinois) and request a peer review to get some more feedback on how this article could be improved for the next step up to GA status. Krimpet 16:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on Hold

The article is quite good and close to GA status but I was concerned by the lack of sources in the Route description section. This section is the most likely to be infected with original research and the best way to counter that is sourcing. If some sources, even general ones, could be added that would be great. I didn't see any other issues and the sourcing in the rest of the article is adequate. Eluchil404 13:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. I cleaned up a couple of the OR-leaning statements and added sources. Krimpet 21:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was left on hold for awhile, and it does appear the original nominator's concerns were addressed as citations do seem plentiful in the section in question, so therefore, i'm passing this article. Homestarmy 16:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Help

I may be away from home, but i can still help out. I've been on this route thousands of times. I'll fix the exit list just a little bit with the notes and milages but you guys shouldn't worry I won't mess anything up. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious, what is your source for these double-digit-precise mileages? I'm afraid they may be inaccurate, as the federal route log states that I-476 is only 129.6 miles long, while your mileages claim it to be 131.37. Krimpet 01:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Bad

Sorry, I forgot to site my cources. I got the millages from DeLorme's computer program and i tested it several times and it seems to be correct. The exit number for Clarks Summit is 131 why does it say the length is 129? I would understand 130 but 129 is too less. I think those people you got that information from are wrong Krimpet. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 22:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a good point, I overlooked the fact that the last exit is in fact 131. Not to mention that the NE EXT is 110.6 miles long according to the Turnpike, but I know for a fact the Blue Route is over 20; the FHWA route log must be slightly off for some reason. I've updated the mileage info in the infobox and lead-in to reflect this, good work. Krimpet 02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(A helpful hint BTW: you don't have to add a new subsection to the talk page everytime, you can just edit the existing sections.)

Stupid me adding sections, i'll remember not to do that. Relax man, this route can't lose it will become a good article or even a featured article i hope. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing the mileage back to FHWA's. The exit numbers should not be regarded as mileages, although PA uses the mile-based exit numbering. A reason it's a bit off is because of the first exit being numbered 1, and that causes the distance in DeLorme's Street Atlas to be off. This is the same reasoning behind the length of Interstate 780 (California). V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Just for reference, the Northeast Extenstion has a length of 110.6 miles between the Mid-County interchange and the Clarks Summit interchange [1], while the Mid-County Expressway has a length of 21.5 miles according to PennDOT's Blue Route page. --Polaron | Talk 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then use that. Locally reliable sources are more reliable than national outdated reliable sources... :-) V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 21:28, 7 March 2007. (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 476/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Examples include "a reduced design built due to local environmental concerns", "8 miles (13 km) south of the toll barrier" (sentences should not begin with a numeral, rather, it should be spelled out).

B. MoS compliance:
Introduction is too short, and does not sufficiently summarize the article, please see WP:LEAD for more info. Article also includes "peacock terms" such as "bisecting the famous Main Line at U.S. Route 30, where the highway is adorned with such visual roadside treats".
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
~~Some paragraphs are lacking citations.~~

C. No original research:
~~Unreferenced statements may contain original research.~~
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~Article will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted.~~--ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some improvements to the article including expanding the lead and rewriting the route description a bit. Dough4872 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, what happened to the control cities? I think its been improved enough, thanks to User:Dough4872 and User:Spikebrennan. I'm impressed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 03:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad!

This has a GA and a High For all! Neptunemusic (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More feedback on exit list etc.

I find "There is also a small dirt road near the Haverford Township exit ...". What does this have to do with I-476? The only other Haverford reference I find is a reference to Haverford College.

Are you sure the Taylor and Clarks Summit exits had old numbers 38 and 39 respectively? This would have been a change from even older exit numbering in that area (Taylor exit did not exist yet, and Clarks Summit was exit 38). (I have put in a remark just ahead of the I-476 exit list to explain old exit number 25A and also old exit numbers 31 and upward.)

Also I remember a remark somewhere that the Northeast Extension was posted as I-476 because the Interstate system in this part of the U.S. was out of 2-digit odd numbers. (99 was taken for the U.S. 220 expressway much further west in Pennsylvania, and 67 is thus the highest currently-unused 2-digit odd number in the system.)

I clearly remember Taylor and Clarks Summit having exit numbers of 38 and 39. Both originally had toll booths, to be replaced by the toll barrier south of both exits. Bill S. (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actual mileage of "Blue Route"

The article says that the non-toll section of I-476 (locally known as the "Blue Route") is 21.5 miles (34.6 km) long. However, the exit list shows the toll barrier at 19.97 and the overpass of the main line of the Pennsylvania Turnpike is at the 20.3 mile marker. I also remember the bridge being around the 20 mile marker as well. The toll barrier is considered the dividing line, and is numbered as Exit 20. Therefore, the lower section should be listed as 20 miles (32 km) in length. Bill S. (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed to to reflect the length as being 20 miles. Dough 48 72 23:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interchange with Interstate 78

Interstate 476 allows access to Interstate 78 via US 22. I have seen other road articles include interstates in the infobox that the interstate does not have a direct interchange with. For example, Interstate 78 has Interstate 476 in the infobox. I think that Interstate 78 should be added to the infobox. Any thoughts? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Only direct interchanges should be included in infoboxes. Dough 48 72 01:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only suggesting this for consistency. Some infoboxes list indirect interchanges, others don't. There is nothing in the infobox standards that mentions whether indirect interchanges should be listed or not. I guess it is up to the article manager. I still think the Interstate 78 indirect interchange should be listed though. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 476. 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/20070820120212/http://www.radnor.com/department/division.asp?fDD=9-108 to http://www.radnor.com/department/division.asp?fDD=9-108

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) 17:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]