Talk:Roads and freeways in metropolitan Phoenix

Outdated information

The I-11 exists and is open, it's not a future interstate anymore. 23:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:B4C0:38:9883:BB69:B864:7779 (talk)

Pictures

Or lack thereof. Can anybody upload some and add them to the article? Looks very plain right now. Rko202 (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Kurumi and AARoads I do not believe are reliable sources, ref 18-21 are the exact same link, use named references to avoid duplication.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

   Suggest asking the Maps Task Force for a map for the article, maybe a few more images, because just having US 60 with an image seems odd

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

--Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Failing GA after 6 days of no improvements. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Metropolitan Phoenix freeways/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• Regarding previous issues raised at last GAR - addressed - not sure why MTF has been slow about your map request. I left a note at the requests page...
  • • Thank you!

*1a) beelines for downtown? Not sure if that's formal...

• • • Fixed.
  • 1.4 - lost the C in Continuing, duplexing needs to be wikilinked
    • Fixed.
  • 2 - seems pointless to have (s) in the heading as there's only one
    • Fixed.
  • 3 - extensions of routes should probably be merged with the route in section 1
    • I don't understand what this means.
    • You should probably merge the description of the route with the description in sec 1 if it's just an extension of the route and not a whole new route.
    • I'd rather not merge the "Future" piece about Loop 202 with the "Existing" piece because it's not in existence yet -- and I do specify which particular piece of the Loop 202 that I discuss in each section (Future and Existing). Please let me know if this is absolutely neccessary for GA and eventually FA status, if so then I'll find a way to fix it. Thanks. Rko202 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 4.4 - Interstate 10 Reliever - is that the official name?
    • It used to be, but I guess it was dropped. Fixed.
  • 6 - not sure that this deserves its own section.
    • Fixed.
  • 7 - spell out 30
    • Fixed.
• 1b) - the article starts a bit abruptly.
  • • I'm not sure how to fix this.
      • Just add a sentence to the start of the article sort of introducing the topic. You jump right into the topic with the first sentence.
        • I tried to find a GA to look at as a model, but they all seem to do this.
          • Just write a sentence introducing the topic.
            • Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rko202 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 5 - not comfortable with list in a GA. Maybe make it a table at least, if it isn't converted to prose?
    • Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rko202 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• 2 - there are entire sections missing sources.
  • • Fixed.
      • Okay, but they need to be inline refs.
        • Which in particular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rko202 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
          • All of them. You cannot have external links in the article; you must use ref tags. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Fixed. Rko202 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Okay, but the old external links need to be removed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
                • Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rko202 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• 3 - a history section may be necessary. Currently a lot of it is briefly explained in the lead...
  • • Much of the history is covered in the Funding section.
• 4-5 - pass
• 6 - again, need a map, but I don't know what's up with MTF on that one...
  • Found one for temporary use from the commons. Rko202 (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

On hold This article needs a bit of cleanup before GA and especially for ACR and FA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please let the reviewer cross stuff out. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Passing. I'm not completely confident in the structure, but this is an unconventional article in general (as it's not on a highway like the vast majority of USRD articles). You may need to reevaluate it again at ACR or FAC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Name

Should this instead be at Phoenix metropolitan area freeways? That makes more sense to me. Karanacs (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A more proper name would be "Highways in metropolitan Phoenix" as it does not discuss city streets at all, but only numbered highways (whether or not they are limited access highways, which some folks call "freeways"). And isn't, for example, "Arizona State Route 143" redundant? Surely it should just be "Arizona Route 143" since, quite obviously, Arizona is a State. Wlindley (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Reference formatting

I made two edits here that updated the formatting of the references used. I'll detail why I did what I did here.

1. Newspaper titles are supposed to be rendered in italics. The references to the Arizona Republic were not.
2. Author names were missing completely.
3. So were publication dates, which like the author names, were given in the newspaper sources.
4. Some of the article titles were wrong, instead using section subtitles as article titles.
5. The first usage of a publisher should be linked, not the fourth.
6. Publisher names should be used consistently. Not Arizona Department of Transportation half of the time, and ADOT the other half.
7. The 1961 road map wasn't formatted correctly. Rand McNally didn't publish it, ADOT did with Rand McNally cartography.
8. Some of the sources are Excel spreadsheets, which should be indicated as the format.
9. The whole report from Mn/DOT has been reformatted. Since the link was only to one chapter in a larger report, I linked it differently so it links to the chapter, by chapter name, with a link to the whole report. I also added a publication date and the name of the company that wrote the report for Mn/DOT

A suggestion going forward would be to convert all of the ISO-style dates into regular format dates. That style is a relic of the days when the templates used date autoformatting on access dates, but date autoformatting is pretty much deprecated now. I only used the style for consistency, but honestly there's no reason not to use normal date formatting in the references. Rand McNally, CNN and KJZZ can be linked if desired, since others are linked on first mention. The rest of the information for Ref 23 should be found to create a full citation using {{cite report}}. Imzadi 1979 → 07:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Roads and freeways in metropolitan Phoenix

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited information, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). It has also not been adequately updated since its promotion, as shown by events in 2015 being referred to with the future tense. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to update much of the text and reduce the volume of material. I still need more general-use citations. Freeways of Milwaukee is my layout inspiration, and it may make sense to link to Phoenix metropolitan area arterial roads somewhere. "Roads and freeways" should just be "Freeways" with the exception of anything controlled-access (Northern Parkway). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Sammi Brie, do you intend to continue? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably not now, but maybe someday. This really is one of those pages that would be best done after doing all the others. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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.