Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Creek Turnpike
Creek Turnpike
[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.
Three support votes result in this article being promoted. -happy5214 08:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
Creek Turnpike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: Finally, at long last, I give you—the Creek Turnpike. This article has been in the works since 2008, whenever I collected all the sources, but I kind of put off doing it until the last couple of months. (Much like the highway itself, planned in the 1950s was put off until the early 1990s!) I've been planning on this being my third FAC since its sister turnpike, the Chickasaw, passed. I think it's ready now. Don't let the size of the article put you off reviewing it—the GA reviewer told me that it was quite interesting.
- Known issues: 1) the OSM map is sort of shoddy. Happy5214 is going to create a better version for me at some point soon when some OSM changes he made push through to the tile renderer. 2) There are a few Tulsa World references that are missing page numbers. These are articles that I didn't collect from the online database at my college in 2008; while that database (which I no longer have access to) had page numbers available, the Tulsa World website does not, so I have no way of looking these up. (References which are known to be missing the page number have an HTML comment in the source. If there is no HTML comment, please let me know, as it means I probably overlooked that ref.)
- Nominated by: —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First comment occurred: 14:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Spotcheck by TCN7JM
[edit]Spotcheck by TCN7JM
|
---|
I just reviewed this article when it was at GAN, so reviewing it again would be redundant, and I'm sure somebody else would like to do the image review, so I'll take the spotcheck. TCN7JM 14:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] If I remember correctly, I'm supposed to review 25% of the sources with 20 being the maximum required...so 20 it is!
I'll add more later, but if I remember correctly (again), the Tulsa World only lets you read ten articles per month for free. More to come... TCN7JM 18:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a Page Not Found error on Source 96. Does that mean I've run out of free articles or that the link has moved? TCN7JM 12:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source 10 seems to have moved as well. TCN7JM 21:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] The above fourteen sources are as many as I can view without going over the free views limit set by the Tulsa World. Can somebody else please take a look at six different sources once I'm done? TCN7JM 03:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at fourteen sources above. Go ahead and fix this stuff before I look at six more. I haven't decided which six I will look at yet. TCN7JM 23:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Replies:
—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Scott sent me 62-67 by mistake, so I guess I'm reviewing them instead.
|
Now having looked at twenty sources, I feel I can support the article's promotion to A-Class. TCN7JM 19:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Dough4872
[edit]Extended content
|
---|
I will review the article. Dough4872 17:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comments:
|
- Support - The article looks good now. Dough4872 14:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by SounderBruce
[edit]- File:Creek Turnpike.svg -
Fair use, licensed properly for non-free use
- File:Creek Turnpike path.png -
PD, uploaded by author
- File:Creek Turnpike OSM.png -
CC-BY-SA, uploaded from OSM
- File:Creek Tpk Exit 31.jpg -
CC-BY-SA, uploaded by author
- File:Least Tern Chicks Day 2.jpg -
CC-BY-SA, uploaded from Flickr
- File:Creek East Plaza.jpg -
CC-BY-SA, uploaded by author
Images all check out and are formatted correctly within the article. I'd like to see more pictures for the history section (planning and/or construction), but I'll Support. SounderBruce 18:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with SounderBruce here. I'd like to see at least one more picture in the History section if possible. TCN7JM 02:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would as well. However, the images that I have on hand are either too similar to the ones already posted or I can't say for sure where exactly they were taken. Additionally, they're all on the east extension, so I'd like to add more from the western and central segments of highway. Unfortunately, that means I'm going to have to go up to Tulsa for more photos, so it may be a while. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Imzadi1979
[edit]Review by Imzadi1979
|
---|
I'll look at reference formatting later, but my review is based on a printed copy of this revision.
Just a quick thing, but footnotes 5, 6, and 9 could use dates/years of publication, if possible. Otherwise all looks good. Imzadi 1979 → 02:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support—all looks good from my end. Imzadi 1979 → 08:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Rschen7754 |
---|
I'll take review #3. --Rschen7754 03:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More later. --Rschen7754 12:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 08:21, 15 April 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.