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

Nominator: NoobThreePointOh (talk · contribs) 20:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Acer-the-Protogen (talk · contribs) 16:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'm starting the review. I'm going to read through it first, then I'll come back and add the templates. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 16:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll see when I can respond to the review. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the GAR discussion. I'm not very experienced on these topics, or GANs in general (I mainly agreed to start it because no one else was going to), and I was wondering if, in your opinion, the problem's been solved. I'm still going to check, but I'd like to hear your view. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 20:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the most part, yes. Is it possible for you to get the opinion of a second reviewer, or someone who's in general experienced in these topics, like Bneu2013? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"For the most part"? What do you mean? I'll leave a message on @Bneu2013's talk page. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 21:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There might be some issues that could be fixed, but they're all minor. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll double-check quickly. I trust you, but I just want to make sure. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 21:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let's wait for his feedback on this as well. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the article after a while, and see if I think any of the outstanding issues raised in the past are still there. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013 Got it. Thanks. Been quite a while since I interacted with you. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I'll also check some of the OR concerns. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 21:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the first sentence under "Charlotte to Greensboro". I find nothing in the cited source supporting the weight station or the Fox affiliate. I noticed that Google Maps was cited, but I think @Bneu2013 would probably know more about the reasoning behind that than I. The rest of that paragraph seems fine. I'm not 100% sure, but under "South Carolina to Charlotte," there seems to be some OR in the sentence regarding Kings Mountain. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 21:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll add the source for the weigh station, but I can't find anything about WJZY, however, Google Maps data typically gets updated, so let me see. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've added the source for the weigh station. I will go back to check on the "South Carolina to Charlotte" paragraph to see if there's any place I can make fixes. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering QFing this page. "Prior issues weren't addressed" may apply here. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 11:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Acer-the-Protogen I probably have to disagree on that part. Since the article's reassessment in July, I've managed to fix most, if not all of the issues. I don't see anything about OR in the beginning paragraph, especially since the King's Mountain sentence has a citation coming from the official website. Bneu, do you mind checking to see if there are instances of any OR in the paragraphs? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that. Also, while I did notice some outstanding issues in a skim-through (I haven't had a chance to do an in-depth review yet, and I apologize for that), I would hold off on quickfailing, as I'd like to give the nominator a chance to address these issues, and think this can be done in a timely manner. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it :) As for me, I agree on holding off. (I got the bright idea to work on a GAN after getting 4 hours of sleep) Thank you! (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 17:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013 Hmmm, when you get the chance, can you tell me where you might be able to find outstanding issues? I'm not sure where they might be, even after scanning it multiple times (Also, I'm pretty distracted with college work, so I usually don't get much time to address stuff, this is the rare exception). :/ NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about not having a lot of time- college is important. Put it, and yourself, first. :) (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 18:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am still interested in reviewing this- just awaiting @Bneu2013's opinions. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 20:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same. I tried looking for more issues in the article, and I'm not sure if there are any in the other paragraphs. He might be busy. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Acer-the-Protogen Hmmm, why don't you set the status to ask a second opinion? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. I am indeed busy. I'll try to get to this today. Bneu2013 (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I took a small break from it as well. Man, college hits me quite heavily. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013,@NoobThreePointOh,don't worry! I also am experiencing some difficulty- my mental health issues have been popping up again, but I'll try to finish this GAN. Best wishes. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 20:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here I go. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments you have, I will respond to those in the morning ASAP. Time for me to catch up on lost sleep. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say, and please don't take this as me abandoning you, but I'm not sure that I can take on as much of this GAN that I thought I would be able to do. My mental health simply won't allow me to do so. I'll try to pitch in on looking at the text for grammatical errors, weird tones, etc, but that's about the most I can take on. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 11:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine. In the meantime, I'm going to fix as much as I can of the suggested changes. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013 Alright, I've fixed most of the issues you've specified. I might still need some help for finding U.S. routes and state highways that paralleled the Great Trading Path. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013 I've fixed most of the issues you specified in the comments. I still have some problems to address, which I might still need your help in, if possible. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

• Link first use of "concurrency" to concurrency (road) in route description.
  • Linked.
    • Not done in route description, but I guess this is okay since it's linked in the lead.

* I don't recommend mentioning when new interchanges were constructed in the route description. In fact, for a highway this long, it's better to leave it out of the body completely and make a note about it in the exit list. See Interstate 40 in Tennessee#Exit list for an example.

• • Done. I've cut it out and added it to the "Projects and later history" section.

* South Fork River appears to be South Fork Catawba River. Link river names in route description.

• • Linked. I was confused about this as well, because when I cross the river, it usually shows just "South Fork River".
• "weigh station occasionally serving trucks in both directions" is confusing. Does this mean the weigh station is not always open? Most weigh stations require all trucks to stop that are not authorized to bypass.
  • The weigh station is occasionally closed, at least based on my viewpoint.
    • I haven't checked yet whether this is consistent with the citation, but I'll let this go for now.
• "This portion of I-85 is often congested due to the lanes merging into one." The mainlines of I-85 traffic do not merge into one lane. I think this might be referring to the ramps connecting I-485 to I-85 south, which I recently drove on. If you want to mention this in the route description, you should reword to be less confusing.
  • Yes, I fixed that to reword it into "the lanes from I-485 merging into one on southbound I-85", if that's okay for you.
    • Specifically mention that it's the ramps that merge into one lane.

* I would cut the sentence about I-77 being accessible from I-485; instead, in the preceding sentences, mention that I-485 is a beltway around Charlotte.

• • Removed. I've reworded it as "I-85 meets I-485, the beltway around Charlotte". Hopefully it's not that confusing.
    • Link first use of I-77 in route description.
      • Fixed that.

* "while it does not serve the central business district of the city directly" - where is I-85 relative to the central business district?

• • Oh, I didn't mention that it's located just north of Uptown. I added that.

* "unusual interchange" is confusing and sounds opinionated. Specify.

• • I've cut out "unusual" and kept "interchange" there for the sake of proper clarity.

* before I-85 reaches an interchange that is accessible northbound only, I-285 → "before I-85 reaches an interchange with the southern terminus of I-285 that is accessible to northbound traffic. only."

• • Reworded.

* Cut "passes underneath the bridge".

• • Cut out.

* Meanwhile, I-85 maintains its northeastward track and passes by a couple more exits before reaching I-785 (its third auxiliary route), I-40, and I-840, the former and latter of which have their southern and eastern terminus at I-85 respectively. - indicate that this is the same interchange. Also cut "(its third auxiliary route)".

• • Yep. I've added "the interchange for" to help clarify it's the same interchange and cut out that parentheses statement.
• The final paragraph of the Greensboro to Durham section seems to have the most prose issues of any of the route description sections.
  • I've noticed that it has a lot of commas as well to make it sound like it's poetry. I removed some of them to help fix the flow.

* before meeting up with US 158 (Dabney Drive), and US 158 merges on I-85 to follow a short concurrency with it → "before beginning a brief concurrency with US 158".

• • Reworded.

* Does "bumpy terrain" mean the road is rough or the topography is rugged?

• • Changed it to "rolling hills" as when I look at it through Street View, I can see that parts of the hills are indeed rolling and hilly.

* Through Gaston County, the name of I-85 is known as the Senator Marshall Arthur Rauch Highway,

• • Cut out.

* Provide short description of Julius L. Chambers before name.

• • Done. Added "civil rights attorney".
• Suggest bundling citations 89 through 92.
  • That's something I still haven't figured out how to do, strangely.
    • Use {{unbulleted list citebundle}}

* I-85 also has two dedicated bridges it crosses, both in Gaston County. The bridge which the Interstate crosses over the South Fork River

• • Cut.

* The bridge which I-85 crosses over the main Catawba River

• • Cut.
• No need to constantly refer to concurrent non-Interstate routes except for the beginnings and ends of concurrencies, as well as the start and end of concurrencies with additional routes.
  • Fixed. I've changed it to "milepost".

* I haven't checked, but make sure all first uses of numbered routes are linked.

• • Yep, I've checked and the routes are all linked, at least based on my perspective.

History

* Specifically mention that the Great Trading Path was a Native American trail.

• • Added.
• Although the tree was located somewhere within the territory of the present Cherokee tribe, authorities determined that the tree was located on or near the Great Trading Path within this area. - Is this referring to a specific tree? I get the impression from the preceding sentences that they did this to a lot of trees along the route.
  • Yes, this is referring to the tree that was a sapling with the knot tied to it. I've changed the word to "sapling".
    • So they only did this to one sapling?
      • It seems so. The Newspapers.com article states it was located on Beech Mountain, which is somewhere near Avery and Watauga counties. I've changed it to mention that specific mountain.

* Cut second link to "Cherokee" immediately after the first.

• • Unlinked.

* most of them paralleling I-85. - do the rivers parallel I-85?

• • Yes, the rivers do, or at least did parallel I-85. I've changed it to mention that.

* Change bluelink of "Columbia" to "Columbia, South Carolina".

• • Changed.

* The amount of commerce brought through the route continued into the present day, where the road would then become known as I-85. - technically I-85 roughly follows the trail, although I know what you're trying to to say.

• • Yeah, it's somewhat accurate, though. I changed it with "trail would be replaced by". Seems more true.
• There needs to be at least a paragraph about preceding U.S. Highways, and possibly state highways. The U.S. Routes that roughly follow I-85 today were likely designations applied to the former Great Trading Path.
  • Hmmm, it's actually hard to find some newspaper articles about preceding U.S. Highways. However, the closest I got to was a Newspapers.com article here. I could add that.
    • The 1926 U.S. Numbered Highways map should give you an idea of which US Highways roughly followed this trail.
• I haven't checked, but the routing of I-85 through North Carolina likely first appeared in the 1944 Interregional Highways Plan and the 1947 Interstate Highway Plan. It may have been been in the 1939 Toll Roads and Free Roads report.
  • Yes, funny enough, the likely routing of I-85 doesn't appear until around page 109 in the 1939 Toll Roads and Free Roads report. I've made sure to mention that in the citation.
• as the state had been constructing sections of the Interstate Highway System since 1949. - these were likely sections that were constructed in anticipation of being grandfathered into the then-proposed Interstate system.
  • Yep, I've reworded it.
• Was the Lexington Bypass one of the routes that began construction in 1949?
  • Yes, it was, as seen on the official NCDOT website, from 1949 to 1951. I've added a citation next to it to help clarify.
• A better source than a bridge date is strongly recommended. There is likely a newspaper article about it somewhere. Also, the bridge was finished a year earlier than what?
  • It was finished a year prior to I-85's construction. I found some 1955 articles on Newspapers.com and added them.
    • Still not particularly fond of "(this date is shown on a plaque, and most sources have used the date)". It looks like one source does indicate that construction began in 1955. Do any sources give a different date?
      • Yes, indeed. I found a Newspapers.com article from June 18, 1958 that shows the true completion date of the bridge, aka the Salisbury Bypass. I've added this into the paragraph.
• The very first stretch of I-85 would later be completed, an 11.3-mile (18.2 km) segment through Mecklenburg County - I'm guessing this was the first section completed with funding from the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956? Specify.
  • Yes, I added "as part of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956" next to it to help clarify.
    • I suggest rewording "The very first stretch of I-85 would later be completed, an 11.3-mile (18.2 km) segment through Mecklenburg County" to something like "The very first stretch of I-85 to be constructed under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was an 11.3-mile (18.2 km) segment..."
      • Reworded that.

* Capitalize "US 29 bypass".

• • Capitalized.

* {{convert}} template for "eleven and twelve-mile stretches".

• • Fixed.
• "Renovations" usually means an extensive reconstruction of an existing section, not a new section opened to traffic. Are more specific dates available for the sections opened in 1960?
  • Yeah, I find it strange that the fact sheet doesn't show the exact months for when the Interstate opened in 1960. I've changed "renovations" to "construction" since it was being built around that time.
• Are there any more specific dates available for the sections opened by 1965 and 1970?
  • It seems to be fairly scarce. The only projects that are available seem to be mostly grading and structures, as well as some minor buildings and locations (both in '67 and '69), which I don't think need to all be referenced.
    • If you'd like, I can do some newspaper searches too see if I can find more specific dates for when sections opened.
      • Yes, that would be perfect. I can't seem to find them anywhere.
• I'm guessing "too many access roads" refers to at-grade interchanges?
  • I think so. I-85 Business is a road I haven't seen much of, and I think it's been removed for the most part.

* The Interstate had a total mileage of 133.6 miles (215.0 km) through the state, - when?

• • Added the date, which was January 1, 1965.
• Was the substandard section between Lexington and Greensboro originally planned to be upgraded to Interstate Highway Standards in lieu of a new alignment?
  • I would probably say so. Considering that the old alignment of US 29 was later upgraded to I-85, this probably confirms it.

* Cut "allowing traffic to use it, ". Did the sections mentioned later in this sentence open when anticipated?

• • Cut. Yes, they did open later.

* I haven't looked at the source, but I noticed the December 1971 section is cited to an article from December 1970. Was this a projected date, and if so, did the sections open when projected?

• • Ah, yes. I fixed that and rearranged the sentence to fix the consistency. Also, that December 1971 segment was actually opened on January 13, 1972, which was when the Interstate was completed.

* On December 15, 1970, governor Bob Scott announced that about a year from then, all of I-85 would be completed in the state except for a stretch between Greensboro and Lexington. Scott also announced that by June, the remaining 8 miles (13 km) of the Interstate in North Carolina would be opened. This reads contradictory. This sounds like he's saying that in within a year (December 1971) all of I-85 except for one stretch would be completed in North Carolina, but in the next sentence says the whole thing would actually be finished in six months (June 1971).

• • Yep, I rearranged that, and as aforementioned, it was opened in 1972. Also, I wrote it wrong, because those were the remaining 8 miles in Mecklenburg County, not the state as a whole. My bad. :)
• Another 35-mile (56 km) segment of the highway from Greensboro to Salisbury was undergoing an environmental study and not planned to be let to contract yet. - Was this the relocated section opened in 1984?
  • Oops, yes, this was the former segment through Greensboro, I-85 Business. I've added that to not confuse readers.

* considered as one of the deadliest roads in the state. - this sounds like it was considered deadly before it opened. I think this may refer to the predecessor U.S. Highway.

• • Fixed. Yes, this was I-85's predecessor U.S. Highway north of Durham to Henderson, US 15.

* Make sure all uses of "Interstate Highway" are capitalized.

• • Capitalized.
• I don't recommend including cost figures for each segment, unless the cost was unusually high, low, set a record, etc.
  • Done. I've removed the single-digit cost and kept the double-digit costs. I figure those are a bit higher than expected.

Here are my additional comments:

• As the first fencing project in the state, the contract price, done by the Butler Brothers of Greensboro, - technically it was the first highway fencing project, although I know what you are trying to say.
  • Yes, that is correct.
• Was the extension of I-40 expected to help traffic on I-85?
  • That is correct. This was on the portion of I-40 that is concurrent with I-85, especially since I-40 can be used to go around Durham and Raleigh.
• By 1988, widening I-85 to six lanes from Greensboro to Burlington was being considered. - the previous paragraph says that it was being considered as far back as the early 1970s, and I seem to remember reading an article from this time that says this.
  • Yes, this is slightly confusing. I assume that they may have delayed it to 1988 or something, because I'm reading the article from 1988 and it seems to be true. I might need some assistance on this. It says the widening started in 1989, so...
• With the opening of a 2.3-mile (3.7 km) section in Alamance County on November 23, 1994, 21 miles (34 km) of I-85/I-40 were eight lanes. - I take this to mean part of the widening project was completed before November 23, 1994. Also, did the entire project begin in 1989?
  • Based on the clipping of the article, yes. I would say this began in 1989 and was slated for completion in 1996. I added the clipping, since it's not there in the citation.
• Were the 14 miles completed in 1996? The citation is to a 1994 article that projects they'd be completed by then. I also don't like the wording of "giving the Interstate eight lanes to where I-40 turned southward at Hillsborough."
  • This one I might need help with. I can't seem to find any articles that state when the widening was completed. And I changed the "giving the Interstate" part to "milepost 164".
• The 2004 relocation most certainly had to be approved by AASHTO. Can you find the minutes from when this was approved?
  • Yep, there we go. I found it on page 3 of the report and added it in.
• Not the biggest fan of using exit numbers for the termini of projects. Suggest using route numbers and/or road names.
  • I removed them and kept the route numbers/road names.
• The widening project is already completed, so change tense of "I-85 is being doubled in capacity".
  • Changed to past tense.
• The widening project that began in early 2017 was most certainly not completed the same year. This is also in disagreement with a previous sentence that says the project was completed by May 2021. I recommend that you find the dates that each phase began and was completed.
  • I forgot to mention that the Old Beatty Ford Road interchange (exit 65) was part of the project and was completed in 2019. I still kind of need help, if you can find any Newspapers.com clippings.
• The entire US 321 interchange was likely not reconstructed in one month. Maybe this is when the project was completed?
  • Oh, yeah. The interchange project was started in December 2017 and was completed on February 26, 2021.
• I drove the section of I-85 between the South Carolina line and I-485 about a week ago, and the widening project between US 321 and I-485 had not started yet.
  • Oops, yes. I changed this to "undergoing a study". Recently I drove to Belmont and yeah, it still hasn't started.
• I'm guessing the I-85 Corridor Improvement project was part of the larger Charlotte to Lexington widening project? I recommend reorganizing these sections for clarity.
  • Yep, that is correct. I didn't even know that at all. I added that sentence to the paragraph.
• I'm guessing the six and eight lane sections between US 74 and Charlotte and through Durham have not always been that wide. There may have been some sections within the large cities that have always had six lanes, but there have most likely been other widening projects in addition to the ones mentioned. You can use historicaerials.com to get an idea of when some of these projects may have taken place.
  • I'll see if I can fix that later on. I found the aerials, but I'm not sure how to add it to the paragraph.
• Unless I-85 in Charlotte is unusually deadly, I don't recommend including the Teltrac study. Congested Interstate Highways often rank among the deadliest highways in urban areas.
  • I removed the section. Pretty pointless and unnecessary.
• Per WP:CAR CRASH, unless the 1995 crash was caused by a design in the roadway and/or led to a change in the design of the roadway, we shouldn't include it.
  • Stated above.
• Based on the source title, it appears that the NC 86 bridge has been hit more than once.
  • Stated above.

Exit list

• I'd prefer a better source for mileages than Google Maps, but if you can't find one then leave as is. Does NCDOT provide a database that lists exit mileages?
  • Unfortunately, it seems that NCDOT doesn't have a database for Interstate exit lists/mileages like GDOT and TDOT do. I guess Google Maps is all that I can make do with.

Thought I'd add a section for the GAN template instead of adding it to the (somewhat cluttered) main. So far, I'd say the prose is definitely improved. I marked a few more off that I thought were alright. Thanks @NoobThreePointOh and @Bneu2013 for doing the thorough check and edits. Bneu, I'll hold off on adding + or - to the rest of Criteria 2 until you think it's alright. Earwig didn't have a problem with the article, so I marked off 2d. Feel free to add to any of this. I'll be able to check anything that doesn't have to do with references, as you'll probably be suited more for that job. I can take a look at the other aspects.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

(Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 20:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013, I think this article's almost a GA. If you give the green light on sourcing, I'll go ahead and close it as GA. If not, I can fail it if you feel it's appropriate. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 20:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's pretty close. The remaining issues that are there are quite minor and don't require much to fix. I still probably need those and the article will pretty much be complete. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]