Talk:Interstate 840 (Tennessee)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NHS Viewer[edit]

The NHS Viewer shows that the southeast part between I-65 and I-40 is I-840. Is this an error, or is it an unsigned designation like I-305, I-910, and I-878? I can't find any mention of I-840 on the FHWA site (though I can't find the North Carolina one, which has been approved), I-878 and I-910 aren't even on the map, and there are other errors like a missing piece of I-495, so it's probably an error. --NE2 03:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This must be an error or an old map. 840 was originally intended to be part of the Interstate Highway System, but when the state wanted to avoid more strict environmental survey guidelines, they decided to build the road with state monies. It is entirely a state highway. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 January 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Too soon. Jenks24 (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Tennessee State Route 840 → Interstate 840 (Tennessee) – The road, while not yet signed, has officially been re-designated as Interstate 840, which makes that the official name. Even without that, "Interstate 840" has always been the common name of the route; everyone who lives in Nashville calls it Interstate 840; you never hear of "Highway 840" or "Tennessee 840." 208.99.110.76 (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I know that the AASHTO and FHWA has approved the redesignation, where is it announced that TDOT has actually formally designated it as Interstate 840? I couldn't find a press release or news bit on their website. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of the issues with road pages is the desire of some editors jumping the gun. I say until it's officially signed-off by TDOT, it should remain as is. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose- would support in the near future when it gets signed. I do agree, however, about "Interstate" being the common name. Let's just wait at least a few months. 2602:306:83F9:1880:7821:2635:EAD8:98C2 (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. We can move this page when the renumbering officially happens. Dough4872 15:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I've e-mailed TDOT to ask what the timeframe is for the redesignation. I will post when I receive an answer. Imzadi 1979 → 16:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • the reply: "Sign changes should begin early this year. As soon as the schedule is received by the Regional Traffic office, crews will begin replacing the signs." In other words, it's not supposed to be that long before the change starts. Imzadi 1979 → 21:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until such time as one can make a credible case for this being how it is commonly referred to. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Missing the point[edit]

@208.99.110.76, Huntster, Dough4872, Imzadi1979, and Jenks24: The discussion above largely misses an important point. The change in the official name has no direct relevance in terms of WP:AT. As @Dicklyon: correctly notes, the more important question is instead: What is the common usage? This is mentioned in the rationale as one of two reasons for moving; It's by far the more important consideration, yet the discussion then centres on the other reason, the official renaming. I'm not questioning the decision to close as not moved, I think that's quite correct, but the reason given again misses the point. The discussion above on whether it is too soon is largely about the official renaming. The point is rather, the only contributor to correctly address the issues has opposed the move. Andrewa (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For roads, we need to stick with the official name as using the common name can sometimes be misleading. This road is currently SR 840 and not I-840 at the time. All the signs on the road and the maps indicate this is SR 840 and we need to refer to it as that for now. Dough4872 22:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Dough on this. As for common usage, it is definitely not referred to as Interstate 840 in casual discussions. The only time I've heard it called I-840 is in a historical context, where the state of Tennessee wanted it to have an Interstate designation prior to construction, but instead decided to use state funds to build it to get around certain federal regulations involving environmental impact studies to gain federal funding, as I recall. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we have consensus for this, then it should be documented in a naming convention and linked to from the WP:AT sidebar. Have I missed it? Andrewa (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that would be common sense, considering the same road can have different "common" local names in different jurisdictions. Regardless, at this time "Tennessee State Route 840" is the most commonly recognisable name. If and when it officially becomes Interstate 840, we would change to that name because leaving it as TN SR 840 would be factually inaccurate. Not sure how else to put this. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Factually inaccurate... You're entitled to this personal opinion as to what is correct, but if we have consensus on this then it should be documented as a naming convention, and if not... that is, if you're alone or even in the minority in this opinion... then I'm afraid it doesn't count for much, however strongly you may personally believe it.
the same road can have different "common" local names in different jurisdictions... If we accept this argument then much of WP:AT goes out the window. Many articles have different common names in different areas. So far, we've always held that the most common name overall was preferred, with specific exceptions in particular areas which are documented in specific naming conventions. Good luck in promoting this major change in policy. Andrewa (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's always that simple as saying the official name is irrelevant. WP:UCN does not actually make a distinction between official and unofficial sources – it simply wants the most common name in reliable sources, regardless of whether they are official or not. For highly prominent articles obviously the number of times the topic is mentioned in non-official sources is going to far outweigh the official ones, but for topics that are a bit more obscure like this it's not necessarily the case. Look at the sources currently used to reference the article, I think all but one of them would be considered an official source. In any case, the discussion had been open for over a week and no one had provided a single source (whether official or independent) in favour of renaming so there was clearly not a consensus to move. When the official sources do switch over this will be well worth revisiting. Jenks24 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the official name is not irrelevant, and hope I didn't say it was. But is it any more relevant than any other usage? That is the issue raised above.
It's a good question, and I thank all for the feedback. Andrewa (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Route description[edit]

I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how the route description section lacks citations. There is no need to place the citations after every paragraph. With regards to the statements about specific sections of the route, that is clearly visible in the Google Maps source. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 840 (Tennessee)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 17:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I will have some comments soon. epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·


Prose, POV, and coverage[edit]

Lead

  • At a length of 77.28 miles (124.37 km) long, - "a length of" is redundant
  • First proposed by former Governor Lamar Alexander as part of a system of Bicentennial Parkways, construction began in 1991 and was completed in 2012 - This has a dangling modifier. The first part of the sentence modifies "the highway", not "construction". I would rephrase it to: First proposed by former Governor Lamar Alexander as part of a system of Bicentennial Parkways, the highway was built from 1991 to 2012. or something similar
    •  Done - rephrased second part to "I-840 was constructed between 1991 and 2012." I also changed "I-840" in the beginning of the succeeding sentence to "The highway," due to the fact that the former wasn't previously used in the preceding sentence. Please let me know if those changes are inadequate. Bneu2013 (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2015, approval was given by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) - Can this be reworded in an active voice?
    •  Done - Please let me know if my change is adequate. Bneu2013 (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On August 12, 2016, TDOT announced that the route had officially been renamed Interstate 840, and that re-signing work would begin.[1] - Is the re-signing work completed? If so, can the second part of the sentence be split off (e.g. "Re-signing work took place between XXXX and YYYY").
    •  Doing... - In progress. The resigning work is complete, and I will try to find a source to confirm this. Bneu2013 (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update - I haven't been able to find any source that says when the resigning work was completed. It looks like TDOT only considered the fact that the route had been officially renamed important. I'm also not sure if that information needs to be included, anyway; I agree that the fact that the route was renamed is what seems the most important. Bneu2013 (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I will put more comments. epicgenius (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Route description:

  • The highway crosses briefly into Hickman County about five miles (8.0 km) later. The route remains in Hickman County for less than 1 1⁄2 miles (2.4 km) - I think we can remove "briefly". The exact length is given by the next sentence.
  • I-840 continues through a predominantly rural area over the next five miles (8.0 km), alternating between farmland and woodlands, before transitioning into a region characterized by dense woodlands, rolling hills with moderate grades, and several streams and creeks, and reaching SR 46 at an interchange near the community of Leiper's Fork about two miles (3.2 km) beyond this point. - Can this sentence be split in two?
    •  Done - Split sentence. Please let me know if my change has any issues. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • rapidly growing suburban area - I don't think the rapidity of the growth is in the source.
  • another rapidly developing suburban area - same
    •  Fixed - cut "rapidly developing." Bneu2013 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • About 3⁄4 mile (1.2 km) later, I-840 crosses the west fork of the Stones River, gradually turning northwest, and about four miles (6.4 km) later, turns sharply northeast, and crosses the east fork of the Stones River about 1 mile (1.6 km) beyond this point. - I would also look into splitting this sentence.
    •  Done - please let me know if there are any issues with my change. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • urgent needs - Is "urgent needs" the official classification of the project? If so, I would put it in quotes. If not, then it seems quite strange since it's being used as an adjective here.
    • Comment - reworded "urgent needs" to "top priorities", which is more in line with what the source says. Please let me know if there is any problem with my change. Bneu2013 (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really a major issue, but the entire second paragraph reads like a timeline with "X section opened on Y". I would switch up the sentence pattern a bit.
    • Comment - I agree that the wording of the sentences here is a bit repetitive, and I will try to make some minor changes, such as rearranging sentences and rewording adjectives. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • mid 2000s - this should probably be hyphenated to "mid-2000s"
  • These changes included construction of bridges over streams feeding the South Harpeth River instead of culverts, multiple wildlife underpasses, and designation of the remaining sections as a scenic highway, which prohibits billboards and uses brown powder-coated guardrail. - I suggest putting semicolons after "culverts" and "underpasses" because there's a comma within one of the list items ("designation ... guardrail")
  • The project took 26 years to complete at a cost of $753.4 million (equivalent to $846 million in 2019[12]) .[13] - Minor thing, but I would replace "at a cost" with "and cost". The current wording is strange, and suggests that the cost was paid out all at once.
    •  Fixed - I agree, the previous wording was a bit confusing. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The western terminus of I-840 was actually constructed in anticipation of the northern segment, and as a result, contains a very short unused extension.[7] - This could probably be condensed, e.g. "The western terminus of I-840 contains a very short unused extension, constructed in anticipation of the northern segment."

More tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, apparently I didn't see the below message. That is unfortunate. I'm going to finish this review right now. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • TDOT first submitted a request to the FHWA to redesignate SR 840 as I-840 in November 1991, but this was withdrawn two months later after it was chosen to construct the entire route with state funds.[33] - I think this can be split into two sentences, right after "November 1991", to prevent it from being a run-on sentence.
  • In "Planning and construction", why did the builders decide to use state funds instead?
    •  Doing... - I know what the critics said, but finding the exact reason will take a little while. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Exit list", are the blank locations unincorporated communities and/or places without legal names?
    • Epicgenius - they are interchanges that are not located near any communities, including unincorporated communities. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • References look mostly good. Though I did notice that about half of the sources are to the Tennessee Department of Transportation. Are the press releases the only sources available for each section's opening?
    • No, there are other sources, too, mostly from newspapers like The Tennessean. I can find some more, if you would like. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, you should probably do that, just so this article has a few more non-primary sources. epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks came out good.
  • I was alerted to a concern that the terrain description doesn't really have good sources. Can the terrain be sourced? I guess you can use OpenStreetMap or something similar, or even Google Maps Street View.
    • I was basing the terrain description primarily on Street View, and since the section cites Google Maps, I was under the impression that was adequate. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. I guess that's fair in this case, but I've seen highway GA's that don't cite terrain at all, so that begs the question of whether it is necessary to even mention terrain. epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images and copyright[edit]

  • Images are all right.
  • Copyright violation checks came up clean. I found a few sources which actually seem to copy from us.

General comments[edit]

  • Epicgenius - There is a small amount of information that is not currently included in the article that I am wondering if should be added or not. I will post these points below as I find them. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should I add the lengths of each sections as they opened? This seems to be a common practice with these articles, but not necessarily required. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added information about when the first proposal for the now-cancelled northern loop was announced. Please let me know if there are any issues with that change. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that is fine. I'm satisfied this meets the GA criteria now, and will pass this article. epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Epicgenius - Thanks! Even though I will point out that I didn't find any information that specifically says why TDOT chose to construct the route only with state funding, other than that is their practice for non-federally planned highways. I did, however, find information that states that they did not plan to apply for redesignation until after the route was complete, which I had kind of figured. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_840_(Tennessee)&oldid=1202983142"