The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2020 [1].

---

Interstate 82[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a relatively minor Interstate highway that took over 30 years to build because of inter-city disputes on where it should go. This highway passes through one of the most productive agricultural areas in the U.S., especially when it comes to hops and wine. It was promoted as a GA over a year ago and went through a project A-Class Review that only got one review. SounderBruce 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Yakima_River_Canyon_highway_paved_in_1924_Washington_State.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I was unable to reach the Ellensburg Library to find out more (as they are closed for an indefinite period), but their catalog lists this as having been published in 1924 and thus now passing into the public domain. The license on the Commons page has been updated accordingly. SounderBruce 02:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is a link to that catalogue available? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nikkimaria: It's here under the Washington Rural Heritage Collections. This is also linked from the Commons page. SounderBruce 02:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per review at ACR. My one hesitation was the lack of publishers in the newspaper article citations - not necessarily because I think they're needed but because I've been told that is generally required at FAC. But open to input either way. --Rschen7754 05:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski[edit]

• First paragraph is a little short. If you combined 1&2 it would be the same size as the fourth para. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Took a section of the second paragraph and grafted it onto the first, and expanded the second paragraph.
• WP:INFOBOXCITE - the length is in the body, doesn't need to also be sourced in the infobox. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Road articles normally have the length cited in the infobox.
    • Why though? The information is clearly cited in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to start a discussion at WT:HWY since it seems that this is now part of MOS. --Rschen7754 04:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel like the original table seems a bit out of place. Either needs a move, or preferably a cull. It's information that's easy to put into prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed it, seeing as other two-state Interstates seem to omit it.
• A branch highway between PSH 3 and the Columbia River near Plymouth—across from Umatilla, Oregon - could we say "Plymouth, Washington", rather than it be confused with Plymouth? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section already references several Washington cities without using the state, and Plymouth is already mentioned in the Route description as being in Washington. I don't see the need to disambiguate.
• hearing board is a weird redlink. I'm not saying it's definately not notable, but as it doesn't redirect anywhere, it might be worth either relinking (say to hearing (law).) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created a redirect. The concept of a hearings board is somewhat unusual to the U.S. public, but we have some exposure out West due to their significance in land use decisions.
• Could we link the first instance of $? There are so many dollars Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links to the dollar article aren't common for U.S. articles, and MOS:CURRENCY only mentions linking for lesser-known currencies.

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for dropping by to start a review. I've left replies to your suggestions above. SounderBruce 03:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I left this one hanging. Happy to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dough4872:

1. In the lead, you might want to indicate what Interstate it intersects in what town.
   1. Added, though I may rework this later.
2. You already defined the abbreviation for Interstate 82 in the lead, do not need to do it again in route description.
   1. Removed.
3. You do not need wikilinks in image captions if those terms are already linked in the prose.
   1. WP:CAP does not say much about wikilinks, but I prefer having them in captions to help catch the attention of readers scrolling through.
4. Do you know the name of the BNSF line? I know the FRA has a map that shows names of railroad lines. This may be useful information to add.
   1. Added subdivision names.
5. Referring to SR 397 as a "recently-built highway" will eventually become outdated, so I would remove the part of it being "recently-built".
   1. Fixed.
6. What freight railroad's track does Amtrak's Empire Builder use? I would add this along with the name of the line as I noted above.
   1. Added.
7. How many lanes wide is I-82? I see no mention of that detail in the route description.
   1. Added, but I don't think it would fit to include every mention of an auxiliary lane.
8. I would not use the term "federal numbered highway system" and instead refer to it as the "United States Numbered Highway System"
   1. I don't think it's necessary to use the official title here.
9. The sentence "$25 million in funding (equivalent to $141 million in 2018 dollars)[37] for the 28-mile (45 km) addition was eventually authorized by the federal government in 1968." should be reworded so it does not begin with a numeral.
   1. Fixed.
10. "A proposal to add climbing lanes for trucks on the steep grades in the Manastash Ridge between Ellensburg and Yakima was made in the 2000s and remains unfunded as of 2017.", any updates on this? Dough4872 13:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1. @Dough4872: No updates so far, and no mentions from local newspapers. SounderBruce 02:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - My issues have been addressed. Dough4872 03:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

• I see you have the traffic data as of 2016. Washington has eliminated their annual traffic count, and instead has a website with data from 2018, so you might want to update the traffic figures
  • I'd prefer not to use the portal because it is harder to cite and verify data compared to the spreadsheet. The 2016 figures are still relatively current, so I don't see a problem with keeping them until a more permanent solution is found for all Washington articles.
• "The freeway reaches its highest point at Vanderbilt Gap, which is 2,672 feet (814 m) above sea level and only 300 feet (91 m) lower than Snoqualmie Pass on I-90, the lowest major pass in the Cascade Mountains, and begins its southwesterly descent into Yakima County." - this is a bit long, I recommend splitting up
  • Split up.
• I-82 and US 395 travel southward and ascend the Horse Heaven Hills to an intersection with SR 397, a recently-built highway that provides alternative points of access for Kennewick and Finley - 1992 isn't that recent
  • Fixed.
• "$301,000 (equivalent to $5.72 million in 2018 dollars)" - more recent USD?
  • The figure is generated by a template that will be updated by maintainers.
• "The highway incorporated several built county roads and planned but unbuilt roads from Ellensburg to Pasco" - I feel like this could be stronger, but I'm not sure how. It tripped me up when I got to it.
  • Merged the two and shortened it.
• "after it was modified to terminate further west near Stanfield" - farther, not further, I believe

All in all, a good read, typical of the road project. Lemme know if any of these comments are problematic. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Hurricanehink: Fixed. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 02:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great work! Thanks for the quick fixes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, would you mind reviewing one of the hurricane FAC's that are up? We sometimes have difficulty getting reviews from non-storm people, but those kind of reviews are most important to make sure it isn't too jargon heavy. If not, no prob, but we'd appreciate that. If you road folk ever need reviews, there are plenty of folks from the hurricane gang. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Will do this later. Kees08 (Talk) 16:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this revision.

• Does ref 5 need Port of Grandview in the title field?
  • Removed.
• Is it possible to reduce the page range of ref 10 down so it is easier to verify?
  • As the entire section is used to source the individual mileposts in the Exit list section, I'm afraid not. I can offer a tip: the "ARM" column represents route mileage and page 624 (734 with the native PDF viewer) has the total length in Washington (132.57 miles).
• Ref 28, is HistoryLink a reliable source? (and ref 36, and any others)
  • HistoryLink is written by historians from around the state, including those with newspaper columns and books from reputable publishers (e.g. University of Washington Press). The reliability question has been brought up in a few of my previous FACs (e.g. Arlington, WA) and resolved in favor of keeping it.
    • Well that wasn't exactly a glowing recommendation, so I did a quick check. The about us page says ...by staff historians, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts., so I double checked the authors of each entry that Interstate 82 references to make sure they were not just volunteers in the sense that Wikipedia defines them. According to their staff page and additional searching on the internet, they are all historians, so HistoryLink should be fine to use. No action needed. Kees08 (Talk) 17:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Same page number comment for ref 34. It isn't ideal to have to read ~10 pages to verify something. Can you break them up more? Anything over maybe 3 pages seems excessive.
  • Fixed, but I might replace it with a different book source.
• Possible to switch to a https link for ref 42?
  • Fixed.
• For all the open access links (for example in ref 40), I believe they are presumed open access and the lock symbol is not required/preferred (which is why it doesn't work in CS1)
  • Removed for now, but I will have to research further to see what these clippings should be marked with (if at all). Either way it'll affect a lot of my editing.
    • I used to include them, dug into it further, and have excluded them ever since. If you find anything different that makes it sound like including them is a good idea let me know. Kees08 (Talk) 07:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• For ref 52, and any other references where it might be ambiguous, can you add the location parameter? I don't think its needed for things like the Seattle Times (though it is nice for consistency and doesn't hurt), but for references like Tr-City Herald it is useful.
  • For the intended audience, "Tri-City Herald" isn't particularly vague (and the locale is explained in the prose). I have added locations to less obvious ones (e.g. Idaho State Journal).
    • Well the intended audience is the English-speaking world, so while I think newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post do not have to have city names, newspapers like Spokesman-Review, Yakima Herald-Republic, Aberdeen Herald, Tri-City Herald, Corvallis Gazette-Times, The Daily Chronicle, Ellensburg Daily Record, Walla Walla Union-Bulletin (PS, this isn't linked in the first instance), Capital Journal, Oregon Statesman, Albany Democrat-Herald, The Oregonian (I could back off of The Oregonian and Oregon Statesman), it would help with WP:VERIFIABILITY. I didn't find a policy on this so I guess do whatever you prefer, but don't expect people to know where Capital Journal or The Daily Chronicle are located. Kees08 (Talk) 07:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• For ref 55, I think if you wikilink something like United Press International you are supposed to do it in all the references.
  • Never heard of this requirement, but I'd rather keep things consistent with the "link at first appearance" format used in the rest of the citations.

    Well I wouldn't call it a requirement, but see MOS:DUPLINK, and my real short discussion with Wehwalt at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Apollo_15_postal_covers_incident/archive1. Since there is little to no actual policy on formatting, practically everything I suggest is that, only a suggestion. I agree with Wehwalt that they stand alone, and if a reader clicks on a reference and there isn't a wikilink on it, I doubt they are going to scroll through the references, find the first instance, and click on it. Your call on what to do. I prefer to not have them at all :), but if they are to be included, I prefer Wehwalt's thoughts of linking all of them (similar to wikilinking in tables). Kees08 (Talk) 07:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Did High Beam change their URL system? Could be useful to find the current versions, archive those, and have the live link.
  • HighBeam is now defunct, and the replacement (Questia) does not include many back issues of the Yakima Herald-Republic.
• For ref 152, believe its just Los Angeles Times
  • Fixed.
• This citation is missing a location: Weird Washington: Your Travel Guide to Washington's Local Legends and Best Kept Secrets
  • Though a location for a book may not be required. I was surprised that I was not able to find a policy requiring it. Kees08 (Talk) 07:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, per Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC Books should be defined in terms of author, title, year and/or edition, and publisher. Publisher location and, where possible, ISBN are usually added, but they are not required by WP:CITE. Consistency requires that these optional fields are either added in all instances or omitted in all instances (except where a book does not have an ISBN). SO based on that, as long as you include locations for all of them or exclude locations for all citations you are in compliance with the minimum standards. Kees08 (Talk) 07:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be enough for now. Let me know if you need further clarification or disagree with any. Kees08 (Talk) 05:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: Thanks for the source review. I have left replies to your comments above. SounderBruce 06:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: I've added the location tags for newspapers without placenames in their title (missed a few the first time around) and to the book citation you mentioned. SounderBruce 07:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review complete and the article satisfies requirements. Kees08 (Talk) 17:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.