Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/U.S. Route 8
U.S. Route 8
[edit]- 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.
Toolbox |
---|
U.S. Route 8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: This would be the first A-Class article for MN and WI if promoted.
- Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First comment occurred: 04:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Review by TCN7JM
[edit]Review by TCN7JM
|
---|
I will begin a review of this article immediately. TCN7JM 04:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this here for you to fix. TCN7JM 06:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support TCN7JM 06:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Dough4872
[edit]- I will review this article. Dough4872 17:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I will do the image review instead since I reviewed this at GAN. Dough4872 16:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:US 8.svg - PD by author, shouldn't it be PD-MUTCD?
- File:US 8 map.png - PD by author
- File:Taylors Falls.JPG - CC-BY-SA 3.0
- File:US Route 8 Rural Lincoln County Wisconsin.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
- File:US8EastTerminusNorwayMichiganNov2009.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
- File:Rhinelander WI area, 1924.png - PD not renewed, image caption could use some more context.
- File:US8 Junction US51 Looking East.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
Noted a couple concerns above. Dough4872 16:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Borrowing a trick from my US 23 work, I highlighted WIS 14's routing on the map and updated the caption to reflect that fact. The map was included because the text in that section discusses routing changes in the 1920s, so context was already in place. Imzadi 1979 → 22:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Images look good now. Dough4872 00:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Royalbroil
[edit]I came across the article while being a Wikipedia consumer something caught me as wrong while I was reading the lead. I noticed that the lead describes 2 areas with an undivided surface road. However, there is another short divided segment at US51 as shown in my photograph - where it is a diamond interchange. I've driven most of the route and that's the only segment that I can recall off the top of my head. Royalbroil 13:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can tweak the mention in the lead, but I don't think calling out a segment of highway that's only divided to pass through an interchange is the same as the other segments. Imzadi 1979 → 02:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Nbound
[edit]Review by Nbound
|
---|
As always, all my points are open for discussion. -- Nbound (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support -- Nbound (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Rschen7754
|
---|
I will review this article. --Rschen7754 16:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More later. --Rschen7754 08:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] Adding that the route description seems to have too many subsections. --Rschen7754 22:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Corrections applied. As the name of a region of the state, I left "Northern" capitalized in the last bullet point. Imzadi 1979 → 07:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Support though having the dead links fixed would be necessary for a support at FAC. --Rschen7754 07:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck by Rschen7754 |
---|
Once the deadlink issues are fixed I will spotcheck. --Rschen7754 20:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] Checking 17 sources:
Spotcheck done, just a few minor issues. --Rschen7754 00:03, 7 September 2013 (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.