Jump to content

Talk:Interstate 85 in North Carolina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleInterstate 85 in North Carolina was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 12, 2024Good article nomineeListed
July 22, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Untitled

[edit]

Began the talk page. Any and all comments and questions are welcomed. --Bdj95 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Only those regarding the page are. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NC state highway shields

[edit]

NC state highway shields are all square, no matter the number, so routes with 3 digits are still 20px... just so you know for future reference. --Triadian 03:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exit 68

[edit]

The northbound and southbound parts are separate. Northbound, it's linked to NC 152, while southboumd, it's linked to US 29 via an unsigned connector. I added this, but it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.240.209 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several locations along I-85 like that, it's not unique. Northbound/Southbound ramps are typically noted if they are incomplete in some way like no return ramp and such. Since both sides of I-85 are signed the same, its not worth mentioning. If others want to weigh in on this, I'm willing to listen and consider otherwise. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no direct return to I-85 from the NC 152 northbound exit. Northbound motorists exiting at Exit 68 onto NC 152 desiring to re-enter northbound I-85 must utilize the unsigned connector, and vice-versa for southbound motorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.240.92 (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Interstate 85 in North Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Interstate 85 in North Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Is anybody making any effort to split the commons category by county, and/or by city? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article?

[edit]

Do you all think that this article is ready to become a good article? At first, it didn't seem like a good article, but then I realized that the route description was way too short. So I went ahead and rewrote it by hand, and added inline citations to the paragraphs that didn't have them before. After that, I nominated it, because the entire article is fully detailed, all citations are inline, and it doesn't go into unnecessary detail. Let me know if you guys have any questions. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 85 in North Carolina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: NoobThreePointOh (talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Keresluna (talk · contribs) 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I will take on this review. Keres🌕Luna edits! 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will try and add any comments that I have if possible. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NoobThreePointOh: Unfortunately, if 2c isn't fixed shortly (like in two days), I am going to have to fail this nomination per WP:GAFAIL. Keres🌕Luna edits! 23:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keresluna Hmmm, I'm looking at 2c, and I'm wondering which sections are uncited. Can you tell me which sections need to be improved? Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the whole subsection 'Durham to Virginia' and 'Related routes' are unreferenced. Keres🌕Luna edits! 23:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's not a lot of info on I-85 from Durham to Virginia (very little sources online). I can definitely fix the "Related routes" section, and probably fix the "Durham to Virginia" section as well. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keresluna  Done. I've added sources in the "Related routes" section. I will try and find some for the "Durham to Virginia" section. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keresluna Alright. I hunted around the web for any reliable sources, and found a lot to help finish the "Durham to Virginia" section by citing the unsourced claims.  Done. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some more sections which are unrefernced:
  • 2nd paragraph of the section South Carolina to Charlotte
  • Last sentence of the first paragraph of Charlotte to Greensboro.
  • Last sentence of Durham to Virginia.
Keres🌕Luna edits! 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keresluna  Done. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keresluna Let me know if you're still there to finish up the review. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Done.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Looks fine.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Present.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research. Massive amounts of uncited text. Whole subsections and sections are uncited. Fixed. More comments below.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig didn't find anything.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Okay.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Looks fine.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All checked.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Probably fail if 2c isn't fixed shortly. Pass.

Prose

[edit]
  • 'Traffic from US 321 south prior to 2017' to 'Traffic from US 321 south before 2017', optional, but probably more flowing
  • 'A couple miles later, I-85 has an exit' to 'A couple of miles later, I-85 has an exit'
  • 'Here, I-85 turns more northward and enters' not sure why more is used here.
  • Capitalize mall in 'Concord Mills mall' and wikilink the whole phrase.
  • 'They do not enter Kannapolis, but have several exits signed for it.' remove the comma. Keres🌕Luna edits! 14:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Keresluna  Done. Here are the responses to each one.
    1. 'Traffic from US 321 south prior to 2017' to 'Traffic from US 321 south before 2017' is fine. I changed that.
    2. 'A couple miles later, I-85 has an exit' to 'A couple of miles later, I-85 has an exit'. Did that as well.
    3. For 'Here, I-85 turns more northward and enters', I-85 is mostly going in a northeast direction, and even occasionally in an east direction, but I made the change anyway since it's not much of a big deal.
    4. 'They do not enter Kannapolis, but have several exits signed for it.' Done with that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oop, and I wikilinked "mall" as well. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Because the previous exit is a northbound-only exit,' to 'Because the previous exit is northbound-only,', optional, but would be nice.
  • 'cross above the southbound lanes and return to normal direction.' to 'cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction.'
  • 'continues to go through wooded forest with no development along' to 'continues to go through a wooded forest with no development along'
  • 'provided for 90-percent federal funding of highways that would become' not sure why there is a hyphen.
  • Remove all the way in 'Interstate eight lanes all the way to where I-40 turned'. Keres🌕Luna edits! 15:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

[edit]

Random ref checks:

4: Checks out.

27: Checks out.

39: Checks out. Keres🌕Luna edits! 16:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4: This one is an official NCDOT map for Cleveland County. The Interstate is a little hard to see on the map of the county, but NCDOT maps are usually reliable sources.
27: This is also an NCDOT map for Granville County, but shows the bridges instead.
39: Hendrick Motorsports is a reliable source, I think, and they have several news articles, so I think it counts. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 22:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that I-85 switches directions from milemarker 96 to 102 in Davidson County?
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: You're gonna have to zoom at least 75% into the map image to see the red line, which is I-85.
Improved to Good Article status by NoobThreePointOh (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • It's not immediately obvious what you're talking about, and you should make it clear where this "Davidson County" place is for people who won't realize it's in North Carolina, USA. So ...
ALT1: ... that for six miles (9.6 km) in Davidson County, North Carolina, traffic on I-85 drives on the left?
I also wonder if you were able to find any explanation for this in your research. I think it's been noted elsewhere as the only significant place in the US with LHT. And maybe we should put that in the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I suppose that works. I'm just a little unsure about what hook exactly to choose. Yeah, I'll probably place it in the intro. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unpromoted. Pulled per Special:Diff/1232390332. Note this is the second time this hook has been pulled, so sending it back to unapproved to get a good hard look. RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Daniel Case: @BlueMoonset: @JuniperChill: For everyone here, this article had to be unpromoted from DYK due to the sourcing coming from Google Maps. After having found a much better source from NCDOT, which this article has a map, I'd like to get approval to see if it now meets the requirements for DYK. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (drive by comment) I don't think "drives on the left" is an accurate description of what happens here. Especially with the link, this seems to indicate that left-hand traffic rules apply (instead, all that happens is that the two directions cross over each other). If we had true left hand traffic, each direction should have its shoulder and most exits on the left hand side. —Kusma (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and honestly as per my previous comment IMHO we need an explicit source saying it drives on the left rather than just inferring that from a map when nobody else has noted it. As such, the switch from Google maps to a NCDOT map doesn't really address this central concern. The map still only sources that they two roads cross over each other twice, not that it's a "drive on the left" area. Somewhere like the United States Virgin Islands, on the other hand, it's clearly sourced that they drive on the left.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I guess I've given up on the DYK nomination then. All that effort I put in for nothing. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reliability of GM is disputed, according to WP:RSP WP:GOOGLEMAPS. Its neither stated as reliable nor unreliable even after several discussions. But anyway It clearly shows that the I85 switches sides like a diverging diamond interchange without traffic lights. Since I am new to Wikipedia and DYK, I may as well leave it to another person to review/promote this hook. JuniperChill (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith, Daniel Case, NoobThreePointOh, and JuniperChill: FWIW there is an article here - [1] which discusses this in detail. I suppose it's questionable whether the "North Carolina Rabbit Hole" is a reliable source, but the guy does seem to have done his research and interviewed the road's designer and suchlike, so interested on opinions on that?  — Amakuru (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great find! I really like this concept of two rest stops in the middle that can be accessed by (normal) right exits. The author seems to be slightly more "independent journalist" than "blogger" but it isn't completely obvious why he passes our RS guidelines. If we trust his statement that there are almost no sources on this but do not trust his statement about the rest area, we won't be able to continue. —Kusma (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started working my way through the article. To be honest, I have no idea how this passed GA; the sourcing is just abyssimal. For example, I'm looking at the first paragraph of "South Carolina to Charlotte". This entire paragraph is cited to map of Cleveland County which doesn't begin to say most of things the paragraph says. "from Cherokee County", as far as I can tell from the map, it's York County. "Most of the Interstate for its first few miles is generally rural in nature and remains four lanes." No clue how the map supports any of that. "which quietly merges onto I-85". Quietly? The map says quietly? "Interstate meets US 74 at a unique weave interchange" Unique? The maps says it's unique? "Both routes also enter Kings Mountain." Looking at the Google map, that does appear to be an accurate statement, but the cited NC DOT map certainly doesn't show it. But, to get to the matter at hand; the (supposedly) left-hand drive sections of I-85 The entire paragraph that contains this statement is cited to https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/State-Mapping/Documents/thumbs/Davidson.pdf, which doesn't even come close to supporing almost anything in that paragraph. "The landscape becomes more rural"??? "I-85 enters a large forest with tree-lined medians"??? This really should have it's GA revoked as a defective review, but I just don't have the energy to file it. RoySmith (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith and NoobThreePointOh: What is the status of this review, given that the above GA has not been edited in over a week?--Launchballer 07:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I have finished editing the article. However, there are some last-minute citations that I need to get from @Bneu2013: in order to add them and see if the article does meet GA criteria. Unfortunately, I'm out of town without my computer until the 17th, and all of the info that I added is stored in it. The only thing I can do is get back on the 17th, head to my computer, and add the citations. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the issues I raised at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Interstate 85 in North Carolina/1 have not been addressed. I don't see how we can run this. RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I really am not able to edit the article without my computer. As aforementioned, the information I wrote is in the edit phase, and I need the citations to officially finish it up. Now yes, I can understand if the article gets delisted, but IMO, I don't think it's necessarily fair due to me being unable to edit. If the article is going to get delisted, then I guess I just have to nominate it again after getting back. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NoobThreePointOh it is now past the 17th; unless you are able to resolve the GAR ASAP, this DYK nom will have to be timed out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, yes. I am officially done fixing the citations and improving the article, which I just did today. The GAR has not been closed, but there are no comments. Despite no consensus, I have made massive renovations to the article so that it can probably be within GA criteria. Hopefully the article doesn't get delisted. There's no point in doing the DYK IMO since it's been more than seven days since the article had the GA icon. But as long as the article seems well-written, I guess I can be okay with that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been delisted as a GA; this nomination must therefore be rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTCountyMaps/PDF_CountyOneSheet/Davidson_CountyMap_OneSheet.pdf

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Interstate 85 in North Carolina

[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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No point in WP:FIXLOOPing until the end of time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many instances of statements which are not supported by the cited references. I marked up a bunch in Special:Diff/1232453072, but this is just a small sampling, and marking them all up would be more like vandalism than anything else. In many cases, entire paragraphs are cited to a single source, which is often just a DOT map showing major road alignments. I also described a bunch more sourcing problems in Special:Diff/1232450469. In short, this was a grossly defective GA review. RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I've fixed most of the issues described in the "citation needed" templates and even added citations in places where they also might have been needed. I feel that now the article is sufficiently sourced and in proper GA territory now. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to do is go through the entire article and verify that every citation really does back up the statement that is supports. Here's a few more from Special:Permalink/1232539652:
  • I-85 narrows back down to six lanes ... [36] not supported by the map
  • The landscape becomes more rural as I-85 reaches just outside of Lexington ... [37] the cited document does't say anything about the landscape becoming rural.
  • I-85 enters a large forest with tree-lined medians and crosses Abbotts Creek ... [38] that's a link to a map that says nothing about a "large forest" or "tree-lined medians".
I really need to emphasize this: don't just fix those three and come back and say, "fixed, it's ready for GA now". The problem is endemic. It's going to be a lot of work to go through and fix this up, but it's encumbant on the author(s) to do that work, not count on reviewers like me to find the problems one by one. RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I expressed my opinions in this discussion on the nominator's talk page that this article was not ready for GA before the nomination was picked up. The biggest issues I raised were overreliance on maps for opening dates (when better sources such as Newspapers and DOT reports are available), the lack of information about notable post-construction projects, and formatting. Most of these issues still remain. In addition, I also recently quickfailed the nomination of Interstate 485 for many of the same reasons. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering... have there been any notable post-construction projects? I can't seem to find any online other than the Corridor Improvement Project. Maybe I'm not looking too sharply. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the interchange with I-77 was recently reconstructed in a pretty big project. That would definitely be worth including. While the article does provide a basic overview of the widening projects, I'm not sure it covers all of them. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more sourcing problems:

  • Because the previous exit is northbound-only, drivers going southbound must use NC 47 to access I-285.[39] I don't see anywhere in the cited source that talks about this.
  • Once the lanes pass under Johnsontown Road around milemarker 102, the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction.[43] the cited map shows nothing approaching the level of detail which would justify making this statement.

Reading the thread noted by Bneu2013 above, I see you wrote: I'm usually more familiar with the I-85 article compared to I-40 since I've gone along I-85 more frequently and am living closer to that corridor. I suspect this is a core part of the problem. You have statement like restaurants, businesses, churches, and car dealerships lining the road.[16] and Businesses, restaurants, parks, and buildings can be seen lining the sides of the highway.[53] both of which are cited to sources which say absolutely nothing about these things. I'm guessing that you are relying on your personal knowledge obtained by driving the route yourself. Am I correct? If so, that is WP:OR and cannot be used. I apologize for my tone, but the requirement to use reliable published sources to establish verifiability is a core policy and it's astonishing to me that this level of non-sourcing got as far as passing a GA review. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, I've driven along I-85, but I usually look at Google Maps when I'm writing the route description for anything. Now I suppose you could consider that as original research. I do apologize for this, however, and Bneu himself has stated that he could find articles from Newspapers.com for it. The only problem is, I ahem... don't have a subscription. So clearly I don't even know what I'm going to do at this point. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS, you mentioned that you don't have a newspapers.com subscription. Free access to newspapers.com is available via WP:TWL. RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry. Just got back from a short errand. Where is it on the Library? I can't seem to find it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, never mind, I found it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure you still have to have a subscription to view PDFs of pages and clip articles. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Wikipedia Library does let me access the articles for free. You're right about the clipping part, though. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a thread about this at WT:The Wikipedia Library#Can't create clippings on newspapers.com. To be honest, I'm still struggling to figure out the dance you have to go through to generate clippings with the new system. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same. What makes it annoying is the fact that I did indeed log in through the library, but for some bizarre reason, it doesn't let me take the clippings. I have no idea if this is my problem or a problem on the site's end. That's also pretty tedious. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RoySmith, do you think the issues have been fixed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: no. I spot-checked on statement ("Once the lanes pass under Johnsontown Road around milemarker 102, the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction") It's still cited to the same useless map, plus the addition of a blog, which not not a WP:RS. Somebody else needs to give this a proper evaluation. RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith @AirshipJungleman29 Now look, I reaaaaallly don't want to use Google Maps for this. But I did talk with Bneu on his talk page and he says that most road editors would agrees that it can be used as a last resort in case I can't find any other source to confirm it. Well, it turns out I indeed can't find the source, and I'm starting to get nervous. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I went to the USGS website and everything is there. So now everything should be confirming to its source. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I've also put DeLorme as a source to help confirm everything in there. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NoobThreePointOh you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to verify facts against a source. Looking at the Fair Grove Quad, I can see that I-85 crosses Johnsontown Rd. But none of these facts are verifiable:
  • I-85 goes under Johnsontown Rd (if anything, it looks the opposite)
  • Where mile marker 99 is.
  • What direction traffic flows on each section of I-85.
  • Which section of I-85 goes over the other when they cross 0.2 miles east of Johnsontown Rd.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to using maps as sources, but you can't just cite them and say whatever feels good. Just like with any other source, you need to carefully read the source and only say what the source says. This is crucial and non-negotiable. I hope whoever does the reassessment review will take the time to carefully check that the sources cited throughout this article do actually support the statements they are supposed to support. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I think at this point I'm going to have to use Google Maps as a source. I can't find anything else, and the official NCDOT maps don't help either. It's a last resort that I can only do since there's no other source to use. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here are my responses for each one of your points.
  • I-85 goes under Johnsontown Rd: I've changed under to cross to make it sound more neutral and in place for the source.
  • mile marker 99: TBH, I didn't think that this was even needed in the article, since it's almost unnecessary except for exits and major interchanges, so I removed it.
  • I've added Google Maps as a source for the last two points you've made. As aforementioned, there's little to no information I can find about the statements online. Based on articles like Interstate 75 in Michigan, which are featured and use Google Maps as a source, I feel that it's a bit adequate to use it in this article as well. Let's hope that someone else who checks over the article says it's perfectly fine to do so.
NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NoobThreePointOh, as reviewer time at GAR is limited, please make a note here when you believe the article fulfils the GA criteria and someone will conduct a more in-depth review, and !vote accordingly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Yes, I do believe now it does meet GA criteria, so is it possible for someone to begin a full review of the article? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look. Picking one citation at random:
  • It reaches the main exit for Belmont at NC 273 near milemarker 27, then crosses the Catawba River on the Cameron Morrison Bridge, entering Mecklenburg County.
    • The map does not say this is the main exit. There's another exit that gets you to Belmont at N. Main St. Why couldn't that be the main exit?
    • Nothing on the cited map says anything about mile marker 27.
    • The map does verify that I-85 crosses the Catawba River, but says nothing about the bridge being named the Cameron Morrison Bridge.
    • The map doesn't mention Mecklenburg County.
Please stop wasting everybody's time with this. RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My responses:
  • I've changed the wording so that it displays Belmont at both N. Main St. and NC 273 for clarity, since both of them go to downtown.
  • This part was cut out despite the source I put showing that exit 27 is milemarker 27, so it's a whatever thing.
  • The last two: I've put a source describing all of the road and bridge names in North Carolina, but the naming of the bridge as well as the counties it connects is on page 21 out of 27 pages on the .pdf document.
I looked for other places where you might suggest improvements and tried fixing them there, but I won't be asking any other checks for a couple days at fear that I might get blocked by you in terms of wasting time. I'm apologizing for that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, one thing before I go: Could you get a roadgeek to review the article as a second opinion? Thanks, and out. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per WP:FIXLOOP.--Launchballer 09:45, 22 July 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_85_in_North_Carolina&oldid=1248859588"