Talk:Pellissippi Parkway/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 06:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: - I believe I've addressed all of your comments so far. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Some copy changes. References seem fine. The map image I am unsure if it is PD. Will hold.

Copy changes

Lead

It provides access to the cities of Oak Ridge and Maryville from Interstates 40 and 75 in the western part of Knoxville, and also serves No comma needed: User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences Both halves have the same subject. (CinS from here on out)
- Done

Route description

Hyphenate "four lane"
- Done
"east side", not "eastside"
- Fixed
Here there is no direct access Comma after "here" for consistency
- Done
Here, the Pellissippi Parkway enters the western end of the city of Knoxville, and is paralleled on both sides by frontage roads south Remove second comma (CinS)
- Done

History

During the planning phase, a decision was made to have the route terminate with SR 62 at Solway, and the new bridge over the Clinch River to replace the then-two lane bridge on SR 62 in a separate project. The second half should be its own sentence and needs a verb.
- Fixed - also cut "then-", since the bridge was ultimately replaced. Also dashed "two lane". Bneu2013 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They charged that the route would pollute the groundwater and streams in the area, and that disruptions to streams would create conditions that could result in widespread flooding. Remove comma (CinS)
- Done
Alexander denied these allegations, stating that he purchased the land for preservation, not development, and pointed out that the extension had been proposed since before his Governorship began. With the commas in the set-off, surround the bolded in en or em dashes, not commas.
- Done
On December 21, 1984, the alignment for the extension was selected out of a total of four proposed routes, which was a combination of two separate proposed routes. Misplaced participle. Consider... On December 21, 1984, the alignment for the extension was selected using a combination of two of the four proposed routings.
- Done
This route had been determined to circumvent all dangerous sinkholes and caves, and was judged to have the least detrimental environmental impact. Remove comma (CinS)
- Done
The bridge was completed in the autumn of 1989 but not opened to traffic, and faced multiple acts of trespassing and vandalism afterwards. CinS but consider The bridge was completed in the autumn of 1989 but not opened to traffic; as a result, it faced multiple acts of trespassing and vandalism afterwards.
- Done
The contract for the last major section of the extension, located between Kingston Pike and I-40/I-75, was awarded in September 1993, and included construction of part of the interchange with I-40/75. Remove last comma (CinS)
- Done
he final phase, which began in June 1995 and was completed in late 1998, after multiple delays, completed the interchange with I-40/75, and constructed new carriageways from this interchange to north of Dutchtown Road, replacing the at-grade intersection. Remove the comma after "I-40/75" (CinS)
- Done
The approximately 7-mile (11 km) extension to US 321 was included in a preliminary draft of the Better Roads Program in January 1986, but was removed by Governor Alexander two months later, who stated that it would not be included in any proposals during his administration. Remove comma after "1986" (CinS)
- Done - also moved the reference to the end of the sentence, as I'm not particularly fond of refs right in the middle of sentences unless they're after commas. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After Alexander left office the following year, the extension began to be listed as a long-term plan, and was first added to the Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization's long-range transportation plan in 1995. Remove comma after "long-term plan" (CinS)
- Done
on and off ramps "on- and off-ramps"
- Done

Spot checks

4: Standard reference describing the National Highway System. Y
8: This is an offline map. Replacing in the check list with
- 9: AADT application. I do not understand how to use this and the reviewer may have to provide directions. Will instead do
  - Comment: To use the AADT application, you have to zoom in on the route, and the stations will appear with the traffic count. If you want more information about each station, such as the traffic history, you have to click on it. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - 10: Another map.
    - 11: Anoooother map.
      - 12: Need for an Oak Ridge connector to relieve traffic elsewhere. Y
17: Criticism that there was too much access to the proposed highway from smaller county roads. Y
30: Parkway foes expressed concern over stability due to sinkholes. Y
36: Inflation calculation. Replacing in the list with
- 35: Roads program PDF. Estimated cost of I-140 at $151.7 million for 19.5 miles. Y
41: Bridge pier work. Y
52: Temporary connector with at-grade exit until the interchange was built. Y
55: 2010 TDOT planning document with planning history reaching to the late 1970s; 1995 TPO update; date of approval all check out. Y

Earwig is pretty much capturing banal phrases like "completed in August 1990 but not opened to traffic" and names of organizations.

Images

I am concerned about Pellissippi Parkway extension proposed routes 1984.png. A map produced by the Knoxville-Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission showing the proposed alignments for an extension of the Pellissippi Parkway, released by the Federal Highway Administration Does that give the FHA ownership of it and thus the ability to release copyright/PD-USGov? The other image is fine. Encouragement: Add alt text.

I think so. The image comes from source 24, which was published by the FHWA. TDOT appears to have used a map prepared by the local planning commission instead of their own. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it was incorporated into an FHWA document, Bneu2013, but that doesn't make it PD-USGov. It was not prepared for a federal agency but for TDOT. It needs to go, and it needs to be removed from Commons. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - Sammi Brie I've removed it completely. I'll admit I just added this one because of a shortage of images of this road, but I may produce a copy of my own. I do plan to take a few pictures of my own, but it will be at least a couple days before I can get up there and do it. The only other issue I have is I'd also like to get more precise dates for when the Oak Ridge sections opened. I plan to look at the Oak Ridger archives for this, but it will be some time before I can do so. Other than that, I think I've addressed everything. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.