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

Nominator: Bneu2013 (talk · contribs) 07:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Elli (talk · contribs) 22:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review; should have a full review out in a few days. Nothing I can see what necessitates a quickfail. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In the first paragraph, along with all other Interstate, US, and state highways in Tennessee isn't sourced (though imo is fine per WP:SKYISBLUE)
  • I agree, this is WP:BLUE. I've had other GAs and one FA pass with this. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The citation for the AADT isn't specific -- it just links to the tool for searching that data. A more specific (and ideally archive-able) link would be good but understandable if it can't be found.
  • Unfortunately this is all there is. You have to zoom in to the exact route to see the AADT data. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• In the second paragraph, I don't have access to the DeLorme source -- can you verify that it confirms the freeway's width and HOV lanes? If not this would need another source.
  • Provided an extra source for the HOV lanes. Things like the number of lanes are usually sourced to maps like DeLorme or Google Maps, although some people object to the latter. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Same thing for the third paragraph.
• In general, only citing maps here isn't ideal, though it is understandable given the subject.

• The Memphis to Bristol Highway was designated as State Route 1 (SR 1), the road between Memphis and Vicksburg, Mississippi, was designated as part of SR 14, the main road connecting Memphis with Jackson, Mississippi, and New Orleans, Louisiana was designated as SR 3, and the road running southeast of Memphis to Birmingham, Alabama, was established as SR 4. this might be clearer to read with semicolons. Could also link the US routes at the end of this paragraph.
  •  Done - replaced with semicolons and added missing geocomma. I'm on the fence about linking the US routes, as they are linked in the previous paragraph, and this could be perceived as overlink. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A map of these routes in the Memphis area, along with the eventual route of I-55, would make the relevance of these four routes in particular much clearer.
  • I agree. You can see all of these routes on any modern map of the area, but I suppose I could create one. Here is a map of Downtown Memphis showing all Interstate, U.S., and state routes; I don't know if this is helpful. On a related note, I had planned to include an old map published in a Newspaper showing the original and modified freeway plan for Memphis in this article. I will try to find this in the next day of two. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a map highlighting particularly the routes mentioned in prose would be useful. As well as that old map, if you can find it. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not name Toll Roads and Free Roads in prose?
  •  Done
• Three years later, a plan produced by the Public Roads Administration of the now-defunct Federal Works Agency recommended the freeway cross the Mississippi River in Memphis into Arkansas, and run through St. Louis before reaching Chicago.[17] this feels like we're reading into the primary source a bit too much -- you could argue that the plan for this freeway was to go through Cairo instead as the map doesn't distinguish which roads would be part of which routes (and indeed, that latter route is faster). Would want a better source.
  • The route that goes through Cairo is now Interstate 57. You are technically correct that the planners probably didn't consider the numbering of these routes, and the Cairo route could have easily been assigned the same numbering as the Memphis route. However, since that route carries a different numbering, I really don't see the need to mention it in this article, especially since it is no where near I-55 in Tennessee. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 established the Interstate Highway System and allocated a total of 1,047.6 miles (1,685.9 km) of Interstate Highways to Tennessee, including the freeway that would become I-55. not sure where this is supported in the source.
  • I'd have to take a closer look, but I do know that this source is used elsewhere for the same information. I've added an additional source. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The numbering was approved by the American Association of State Highway Officials on August 14, 1957, for the north-south freeway between the Mississippi state line and the interchange adjacent to Nonconnah Creek, and the original loop route between this interchange and the Mississippi River.[2] the routes shown in this map are approximate at best and probably not sufficient for showing the approval of the specific routing through Memphis.
  • You are technically correct that the precise location that the route follows (down to the individual tracts that would need to be acquired, for instance) had not yet been decided, but the general location had. This will become apparent once I get the map of the highway plan uploaded. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The first segment of I-55 to begin construction after the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act was the interchange with I-240, along with a short stretch of that route east of the interchange. A contract for this project was awarded on July 25, 1958. not sure how the source supports this specific claim?
  •  Fixed - it is listed on page 76, which I forgot to list in the page number parameter. I have fixed this. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Not going to check the sources for each of the segments, but would suggest trying to find a source other than a table, even just news coverage, for each of them.
  • Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find much. The best I could find was advertising for bids, which I like to use as a last resort. I can use these if you'd like. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you have here is probably fine, if there aren't better sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As traffic volumes grew, the cloverleaf interchange with Crump Boulevard gradually became inadequate, leading to congestion and a high accident rate. The design required I-55 northbound traffic to utilize a loop ramp with a 25 mph (40 km/h) design speed to pass through the interchange. Southbound traffic used a one-lane ramp in order to remain on I-55. Originally, northbound traffic had to merge onto a one-lane loop with a tight radius while traffic going from I-55 southbound to Riverside Drive merged into traffic on another loop ramp. A temporary solution was put into effect in 2011 by widening the northbound loop to two lanes, eliminating the loop ramp between I-55 southbound and Riverside Drive, and creating a left turn lane for this traffic. This eliminated having to make a lane change in order to stay on I-55 northbound. this is supported by a 655-page PDF with no page numbers given.
  •  Done - unfortunately the pages aren't numbered, but I've added the one from the PDF. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• In June 2021, a second lane was added for the I-55 southbound ramp in response increased traffic due to the Hernando de Soto Bridge closure.[30] this sentence feels out of place here -- not sure about the best location though.
  • I can see why, but I'm not sure where to move it. This sentence is here because it describes a temporary fix, just like the previous one in 2011. Maybe I should reword; do you have any suggestions? Bneu2013 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's a temporary fix, is it worth keeping in the article? Elli (talk | contribs) 18:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• On March 30, 2022, TDOT awarded a $141.2 million contract for the project. is there a reason for such a long delay?
  • I don't know if I can give you a definite answer, but I can give you my opinion. That TDOT is probably the most incompetent state DOT in the country. They are absolutely terrible at planning; it is not uncommon for them to do the engineering for a project and then stick it on the shelf for 20 years. It is also not uncommon for them to budget something for construction one year only to completely remove it from the three-year plan (which is a terrible misnomer; they revise it every year) the next. This is often attributed to their policy of not borrowing money for road construction, but I'm not convinced that is the whole story. They are simply terrible at planning, and don't come up with a plan and stick to it. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• construction was scheduled to begin on June 6, but was postponed by seven days due to inclement weather emphasizing the original construction start date doesn't seem to make a lot of sense -- I'd rather focus on the actual start date ("construction began on June 13, after being postponed for six days due to weather"). Also, when was the bridge closed/will it be closed? Since this is a three-year project, presumably it's not closed for most of it.
  •  Done

• No particular comments here.
  • I'm guessing that means you have no issues with this section in its present form. I would like to point out that I do plan to watch this project closely and update the section as new information becomes available. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, here's the sources for the number of lanes. Would suggest using these earlier in the article as well (as mentioned above).
  • I haven't really seen that this is a common practice. I've had multiple GAs and one FA pass without this, and I really feel like adding the sources for widening projects to the route description is overkill. If anyone is skeptical of the number of lanes, they can check street view. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• In November 2023, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) approved an extension of US 78 into Arkansas, which utilizes I-55 between the Memphis & Arkansas Bridge and the Crump interchange.[67] link US 78 here?
  •  Done - linked U.S. Route 78#Tennessee. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pictures of the signs for these would be nice, but not necessary.
  • Unfortunately I don't know of any freely licensed ones online. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks alright.

• I-255 shouldn't be bolded here. I'd link to Interstate 255 (Tennessee).
  •  Done - I really don't see the need for the link though. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All appear to be acceptable.

• Overall route's terminus in LaPlace isn't mentioned in the body.
  • This is common in Interstate Highway articles, including ones which are featured articles. Since the article is about the individual state segment, there really is no need to mention this anywhere elsewhere.
• Of the six states that the Interstate passes through, the segment in Tennessee is the shortest, as well as the shortest mainline Interstate segment in Tennessee. not mentioned in the body
  • Again, I don't see a need to mention this elsewhere, since the article is about the state segment. However, due to the extremely short length, one could easily infer that this is likely true. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• the second-busiest cargo airport in the world not mentioned in the body
  •  Done - also added new source. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• minor thing but here you have "J.O." while in the "Honorary designations" you have "J. O." -- should be consistent.
  •  Fixed
• this is the oldest bridge on the Interstate Highway System in Tennessee and the oldest bridge on I-55 not mentioned in body
  •  Done
• making it the first mainline Interstate Highway in Tennessee to be completed not mentioned in body
  •  Done - also added new source. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is pretty good and comprehensive, but there are some sourcing issues, so putting this on hold to give time for those to be addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments here. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Elli: - Thanks for the review. I've addressed most of your comments so far, and will try to get to the rest tomorrow. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bneu2013: Just FYI, I'm prepared to pass this once you get the highway plan map uploaded (or not, as it's not strictly necessary... but it would be really helpful). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Done - I've added a map of the original highway plan. I had actually intended to use another one from the following year that highlights the cancelled segments, but that map actually incorrectly has additional parts cancelled that were built. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]