This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bneu2013. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I am currently working on expanding the article for U.S. Route 25E to good article status. I have noticed your spectacular work on state and Interstate highway articles in our great state of Tennessee. I would appreciate it if you could help me in the goal of getting US 25E's article to GA status.
@AppalachianCentrist: - Thank you. First of all, this source provides a history of the numerical designations of the route, even though you will probably want to corroborate anything you use with better sources, such as maps, newspaper articles, or AASHTO minutes. Also take a look at the entries on US 25, US 25W, and SR 32. Also, I just found a 1966 task force report about the feasibility of the Cumberland Gap Tunnel. I actually worked on that article about two years ago, but somehow got caught up in something else. I will take a look at it again. I can also tell you what I know about this route, however. As the article mentions, both states began widening the route prior to construction of the tunnels. I'm pretty sure the last section to be widened was the stretch through Claiborne County south of Tazewell, which I think may not have been finished until the mid-2000s. I'm also pretty sure the stretch over Clinch Mountain was finished in the early 1980s, but I'm not totally certain of this. This podcast mentions some project in Grainger County that was under construction in the 1990s; I think it may have been the stretch between Bean Station and Clinch Mountain, but additional sources should corroborate this. In the meantime, I will try to find some newspaper articles, and will post my findings here shortly. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bneu2013. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The short answer is that it's a chat server filled with other editors from around Wikipedia. There is a channel called #wpengineering that several of us hang/lurk out in. –Fredddie™13:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
You might want to consider reviewing other nominations in the (unspoken) hopes that someone will review yours. It's a shame that FAC has downgraded to this level but unfortunately that's how it is nowadays. At the minimum, it does fractionally increase the probability that someone will review yours.
I can always review, however I would prefer to only do so if there is a critical lack of reviewers and the nomination is in danger of being archived, due to the recent controversies regarding the road projects. Rschen775405:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: - Thanks. This is the first article I have ever nominated as an FAC, and I'm not sure I would consider myself qualified yet to conduct FA reviews yet. I do, however, have a good bit of experience with GA reviews, and I will take a look at the backlog. I'd strongly appreciate if you'd be willing to review this nomination; I actually posted a notification of this review at WT:USRD and WT:TN when I nominated, but that doesn't seem to have done much good. I'm honestly not sure what controversies you are referring to. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
These links would sum it up: [1][2] I can still review it and I intend to if the nomination is in danger of being archived, however I think a review from someone outside the road projects would be more valuable. --Rschen775405:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: - I was completely unaware of this controversy, and don't see that it directly affects this review. However, I was actually leaning towards editors active in the roads WikiProject, as this area is their expertise, but I would appreciate editors from any disciplines. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Generally FAC wants at least one non-subject area editor to review. The magic number tends to be 3 supports with no opposing but that is never explicitly stated anywhere and is not a firm standard. --Rschen775405:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: - Okay. Once again, if you'd be willing to review, I'd be beyond appreciated, as I believe this would be one of the most valuable articles under the scope of WP:USRD to get to FA status. If you also have any ideas for what I could do to get more reviewers, please let me know. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I hope you don't take my hesitation to continue the review personally - unfortunately there seem to be a few too many big things that need to be fixed in what I've read so far. If they let me continue I will but I am hesitant to do so at this point. There's also a lot of things that are not as they once were - WP:HWY/ACR is mostly inactive these days and WP:FAC is de facto a quid pro quo - the delegates will never admit that, but that is reality. The road projects are also under a lot of pressure with the map RFC, all the AFDs, and more. If you take it back you really need to make sure that you're not adding stuff to the RD that is not cited - not just the scenery, but the other things. A WP:GOCE copyedit might be helpful, but there should be the clear expectation that you will take it with a grain of salt as sometimes their fixes make a mess. Hopefully one day things will be better, but it is hard to say at this point. --Rschen775406:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I understand. Note that I am going to work on the remaining points you posted, and let you know when I am through. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:WCLE-FM.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I'm sorry to hear your FAC nomination was archived. Please know my offer to review the article was sincere. I just had some real life stuff come up that made this timing difficult. I'd be happy to review it should it be nominated again. Dave (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
@Moabdave: - I totally understand; I'm actually very busy myself these days. Do you think it would violate WP:CANVAS if I were to let you know whenever I nominated again? I think I'm going to wait until the maps RfC is over, and work on the recommended improvements in the meantime. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be happy to do it. Just ping me when you're done resolving the feedback you've already received and I'd be happy to give it an informal looksie as well. If anybody has a problem with that, remind them we're reason we volunteer our time here is to help build an encyclopedia. If they have a problem with someone asking for reviews and feedback to help make an article better well that says more about them than it does you. It's unfortunate, but politely suggesting to such people they need to talk to their therapist about upping the dosage on the stability meds is a survival skill around here. Dave (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
@Cukie Gherkin: - Yes, I am. I strongly apologize, but I somehow missed that. Looks like I let the review page expire from my watchlist. I will get to work immediately. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Tennessee history edit reversion by you was high-handed and wrong
You reverted a significant and DOCUMENTED BY TWO REFERENCES edit I made to Tennessee history, including especially information about lynchings in the state. What reason can you give for doing this? It actually happened and it's significant and in my opinion should be noted in the history for the decades following the Civil War. Your revsion edit said "This may be too much information". That is not an adequate reason. I'm asking you to restore the basic information about lynchings. You may reduce its bulk, but you should not "sanitize" the history of a place because you find it distasteful. I too am from Tennessee and I am just as concerned for the state as you, and I would like to see Wikipedia reflect the truth about things that happened there in the past. Please restore the lynching information with the two references that I provided, or I intend to escalate a complaint about you. Harborsparrow (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but my main reason was to ensure that the article doesn't get too long and maintains its Good Article status. I suggest you take a look a WP:Summary style if you aren't familiar with this guideline. Also remember that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. First of all, there is no need to split the sentences about sharecropping, lynchings, the Coal Creek War, the Centennial exposition, etc. into subsections. With regards to lynchings, while these were indeed tragic, what is even more tragic is that lynchings and other acts of racial violence were in no way unique to Tennessee. If you know of a more unique act of racial violence, such as the Tulsa race massacre or the 1912 racial conflict in Forsyth County, Georgia, then we should probably include it. We already include the Memphis riots of 1866 and Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.. In order to summarize the history, we generally try to stick to events that were significant and unique to the state. The first few sentences you added were also off topic, and belong on articles that describe lynchings. That being said, we could probably include a sentence about the number of lynchings that occurred during the post war era, but the article History of Tennessee would be a better place to add in-depth content about historical events. If you are interested in adding this, I suggest you raise the issue on the talk page. Bneu2013 (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
On 12 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 75/24 Split, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 75/24 Split in Chattanooga, Tennessee, has been one of the worst bottlenecks for trucks in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/75/24 Split. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 75/24 Split), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
I submitted the Wiki page for Blue Origin for a good article review. I had worked on it a lot and think it meets the criteria for a good article. I saw you reviewed am additional article. Would you be able to review the Blue Origin article when you have time and interested? Señor Jakob (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I am a little further behind on my current reviews that I'd like to be, but I can take a look at it in a day or two if someone else doesn't pick in up. Bneu2013 (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to tell you that I will be indefinitely retiring from Wikipedia effectively as of yesterday. I apologize for this notice, but I wanted to say thank you for your help with upgrading several articles with me. While I am gone, I would ask as a personal favour, if you could help complete some of my work in upgrading U.S. Route 25E, U.S. Route 11W, Tellico Dam, 1972 Bean Station bus-truck collision, and Morristown, Tennessee to good article status, if you're willing to of course.
@AppalachianCentrist: - sorry to see you go. I'd like to encourage you to reconsider you're decision, but if you're unwilling to edit frequently, that's fine. I've had plenty of bouts of inactivity, but I've never fully retired. That being said, I will continue work on those articles. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I noticed you don't have IPBE, which would make them a non-issue. I would grant it to you myself, but a) current policy strongly discourages admins from doing that except in cases where we have known the user for a long time and are prepared to vouch for them and b) more importantly, given the WT:GAN thread that led to you doing this review (I think), I would come across as extremely hypocritical if I did, since it would be hard not to see an implicit quid pro quo.
But ... I could ask the checkusers, or one of them, if (as current procedure requires) they'd be willing to look at your account and decide whether to grant it to you themselves. You can do this yourself via the instructions at WP:IPECPROXY if you really want to keep it aboveboard, but that may take longer. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: Yes, I am still having connectivity issues. Although my individual IP has never made any edits, it is currently blocked via a range block for open proxy. I have contacted my ISP, but they haven't been very helpful. If IPBE is an option, I would like to have it. My only concern is since I have edited from shared IP addresses at educational institutions in the past, I don't want the checkusers to think I was socking. I even got blocked by a checkuser about four years ago (who was obviously fishing) who claimed that I was editing logged out, although I continue to maintain my innocence. Suspiciously, he was unwilling to let me know exactly what evidence he had to suspect this. But if I am not mistaken, the arbitration committee has cracked down on fishing since then. While I'll never be at the top, I think I have demonstrated myself to be a trusted contributor to this project, however. If you'd like to ask a checkuser, that would be fine. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
ISPs, in my experience, really can't and don't do much to help users in your position (I review a great deal of unblock requests of that type).
The checkusers would be more concerned with who might be using your address or the ones adjacent to it now (But of course it would be good to mention that in your request, just for full disclosure's sake).
Checkusers rarely share their evidence ... it's a condition of having that tool, in fact. Because if they did let everyone know what they based the technical aspect of their conclusions on, the committed sockmasters would use that knowledge to (at least) try to get better and hide themselves.
The article Pellissippi Parkway you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pellissippi Parkway for comments about the article, and Talk:Pellissippi Parkway/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Just noting re the ongoing GAR on The Exorcist that William Friedkin died today, scotching one of my wilder ideas about getting some clarification on some questions I still have by actually putting them to him on video. Oh well ...
Sad to hear about this. I wonder if there's anyone else who was involved in the production that you could reach out to. But if you were to learn any information that wasn't available in any reliable sources, I don't guess you could include it. Bneu2013 (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, the idea is that if it’s verifiably the real person answering the question, that trumps OR. We had a user named DavidShankbone years back (not active now) who actually was able to interview people like Al Sharpton about things in articles and use those videos as sources. But, it’s true, we’ve never really resolved this as a policy thing.
BTW, I am currently in Singapore at Wikimania, so I may not be as able to respond and make changes to the article for the next week (and not at all while I am traveling back home next Monday). Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I made some responses and changes yesterday ... I'm back, even if getting over the jet lag has me up and at it before 7 a.m. Daniel Case (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Good morning. I am inquiring about the undo you made to Alan Jones (businessman). Your only comment was "Puffery and possibly COI edits". I am not sure what you mean by puffery, but the edits I made corrected the text. The original text states he wiretapped his ex-wife's phone, when in fact it was his own phone, and thus the basis for the courts decision. The copy is misleading and biased. I attempted to make the copy neutral and more consistent with the article. As for COI edits, I do know Mr Jones as I am a local Cleveland citizen. This makes me part of the limited audience for this content, and I would prefer it to be correct. I don't think that is a conflict of interest. I find your reasons for undoing my edits inadequate. If I have cited a source incorrectly, please let me know. If I have made untrue statements, let me know. If there is some tribunal of editors that needs to judge the value of "puffery" rather than a single vague opinion, let me know. Other wise, I am going to undo your undo. The edits were reviewed by another editor and my explanation was accepted. Millertraci (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Millertraci: - I apologize, most of what I undid was puffery that had been added just before your edits. This was about something entirely different in this section, not the wiretapping. With regards to the wiretapping, if the case says that the device was placed on his phone (I don't remember), feel free to reinstate that. Just don't add anything that is not in the source and don't undo my whole edit. In case you don't know, this article has had COI edits since its creation, which is why it is pending changes protected. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Gatlinburg Bypass you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gatlinburg Bypass for comments about the article, and Talk:Gatlinburg Bypass/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in the August 2023 GAN backlog drive
The Minor Barnstar
We really appreciate your efforts to review GANs. During the drive, the backlog of unreviewed nominations reduced by 440 articles, an astonishing 69 percent.
File permission problem with File:I-40-Nashville-1962.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:I-40-Nashville-1962.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
On 17 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tennessee State Route 158, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that portions of Tennessee State Route 158 have been called "Front Street", "Front Avenue", "Lakefront Drive", "Neyland Drive", and "James White Parkway"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tennessee State Route 158. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tennessee State Route 158), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Congratulations, Bneu2013! The article you nominated, Interstate 40 in Tennessee, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you today for the article, "about the second-longest freeway segment within a U.S. state east of the Mississippi River, and arguably the most important road in Tennessee by a long shot. This road is culturally significant in that it passes through one of the most important regions instrumental in the development of popular music (Hence its nickname "Music Highway"), and is also connected to a landmark United States Supreme Court case that has had implications on probably all highway construction projects since."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations on finally getting this to FA status and for having a TFA. You went through a lot for it. Thanks for all of your work. — AjaxSmack22:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien: - Thanks for the reminder; I will take a look later today. Unfortunately personal obligations have reduced my availability on Wikipedia in recent weeks, and once I finish this review and another one I am working on, I am going to have to reduce my activity. But I should be able to finish my review today. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Orchard MRT Station GA
Hi, I understand that you were planning to do the GA review of Orchard MRT station. I'm not the involved editor, but since it's been a while since your last comment on Sep 23rd, I just wanted to check whether you're still continuing to do the review. I don't mean to rush you or anything if you're busy, I just wanted to check in because it has been quite a while since the last comment. S5A-0043Talk04:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@S5A-0043: - thanks for the notice. Yes, I'm afraid I'm going to have to have someone else take over this review. I'm currently working on two other reviews that I plan to finish, but once I do so, I'm going to have to take a break from reviews for a while, as my schedule has become more demanding in recent months than in the past. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I am retiring permanently from Wikipedia due to issues with another user. If you need anything from me, please do not hesitate to reach out, I may not respond as quickly as I used to, but I appreciate your work to make more Tennessee-related articles to GA status.
@AppalachianCentrist: - I really wish you would reconsider this decision. I know very well how frustrating conflicts with other users can be, but we've lost a lot of great content contributors in recent years, and I fear that giving up will only embolden these non-content contributors, who, in my opinion, are not here to build an encyclopedia. I don't know the details of your conflict, but if you feel that there is some policy violation going on, then I urge you to bring it up at the proper place. But if not, then I hate to see you go. I was hoping you would be able to work more on those articles; they will not be easy to get to GA status. US 11W and 25E are without a doubt two of the most historically significant highways, not just in Tennessee, but in the entire Southeast; they would be some of the most valuable articles to appear on the Main Page. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Per your question a while back in this edit, after the moment where, as outlined in the discussion I had with Buidhe afterwards, I had to realize that a) there was no realistic chance I could get the article to FA in the time I had left last year with the issues I was having, and b) I was also pretty burnt out after devoting so much of my previous year to developing and improving it and it would be good if I were able to take a break. In retrospect I cannot say I accomplished nothing ... that article is not only a GA now, it is vastly improved from what it was in 2020 when I began working on it with an eye toward FA. "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?", I suppose.
As far as bringing it up to FA for this Halloween, well ... this has happened before of course but it happened again in a pretty big way with this article: just when I thought I had done all the research I possibly could, read everything available out there, more information was released that I will have to look into. The 50th anniversary led to the publication of not just one, not just two but three books on the film. I will have to acquire and read them at some point soon (not ready to do that just yet).
Anyhow, re your concerns about HALFLIFE, I do of course continue to watchlist the article and keep it up to the new standard I've gotten it to.
But I think longer might be better before an FAC at this point. I returned to the production article over the past week or so, thinking all I'd really need to do at this point was copyedit a bit and make sure that everything I cut from that part of the main article that I thought was more relevant to the production article was, indeed, in the latter. But in the process I found several insufficient references to the 1998 Mark Kermode 25th anniversary documentary, The Fear of God. I figured I'd either have to confirm them by finding, possibly, a copy online (and give missing timestamps) or delete them entirely.
It turned out to be the former, and since both the production article and the main article had duplicate citations to the documentary I had to clean that up as well. And not only were timestamps a definite need, since the doc is 77 minutes long, I had to watch the whole thing to find the relevant sections. And, of course, find anything more that might be worth adding to the article, which there was.
And in checking some of the other sources, I found more interesting sources that I wish I'd found earlier. A lot of that relates to the themes (and I will have to undelete the themes article, as I plan on later this month taking a nice day trip to a nearby college library and really taking a deep dive into the academic and scholarly work available that's otherwise paywalled from my computer and not available through the Wikipedia Library).
@Daniel Case: - sorry, I totally forgot about that discussion. At least we were able to get a DYK for the article this past Halloween. I actually did a quick Google Search, and most of the 50th anniversary coverage I could find actually seemed to take place before the actual anniversary. For example, this NYT article was published more than two months before the actual anniversary. So I don't guess its as big of a disappointment. Also, most people probably didn't see the film until 1974; my dad was a senior in high school at the time, and didn't hear about it until he returned from Christmas break. But, yes, I do agree that this article would greatly benefit from the spinoff articles you have suggested. Even though, as I mentioned before, I am not a strict 10k'er, and as such, I think it is perfectly fine for this article to remain above 10k words, even with the proposed spinoffs, as long as the sections remain at summary length. There is certainly a lot of noteworthy content about the production, reception, curse, etc., that is worth including on Wikipedia and should definitely go in spinoff articles. Also, the reception article would also probably be a good place to go in depth about the audience reactions, in addition to the reviews from critics. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it seems that the release of The Exorcist: Believer kind of stole/piggybacked on the 50th anniversary's thunder (as it was quite likely intended to do). The article hit its peak in daily pageviews of 63,000+ last year around that film's release date; the actual 50th anniversary date didn't show much of an increase from the usual level (of course it would have if it had been the Main Page FA, but ...). That day I don't remember it having been noted in the media that much, actually (largely because as circumstances had it I was away from home most of that day, which might be part of that).
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article APD-40 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
February 2024 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award
Citation Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to Bneu2013 for collecting more than 10 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bneu2013, I've substantially rearranged the article to be (hopefully) more consistent and useful. I've moved a lot of material around and retitled many subsections, and I've also merged a few sections. There's an uncited paragraph in "Demographics" --> "2010 census". Anyway, good luck with the article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab15:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, Bneu. I noticed you immediately failed my GA nom for the article. However, in my opinion, I feel that the close was a bit too hasty. Here's what I think.
1. About 2 to 3 months ago, you told me you thought the I-40 and I-85 articles weren't ready because they don't satisfy criterion 3. I looked at the criterion, and found a citation saying, The "broad in its coverage" is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. I noticed that you told me to look at the I-40 TN article, which was an FA, but I don't think that it was a reasonable comparison since good articles don't have to meet the FA criteria, which are generally more demanding.
2. You had also given some issues that needed to be addressed. I'm usually quick to respond to comments from other editors, so I'm sure I would have been able to fix these issues before the review was closed. In defense, I think it was a little... unfair to close it a little early as it's easy for me to address the issues.
@NoobThreePointOh: - Sorry for the late response, I'm not as active as I used to be. While GAs don't need to be as broad as FAs, they still shouldn't be lacking of any important detail. As I mentioned, this article is lacking information about it's planning and background. Based on the other feedback I gave, I think the article also fails 1 and 2b, the latter almost exclusively due to dead links. The article isn't far from meeting the GA criteria, but still needs some work. If you disagree, with my closure, you can bring it up at WT:GA. Finally, I am aware that finding information about the history of roads, especially pre-construction history, can be difficult. I mentioned EIS's as a possible source, and if you don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com, I can do research for you. But don't give up; we've lost too many road editors in recent years, and don't need to lose any more. Bneu2013 (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I mean, at least there's eh... a bit of a chance. I can try and fix the issues you mentioned. I'm actually in a different country on vacation right now, so my time zone is different, but for most of the time, I'm usually active. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I suggest fixing the major issues I raised before renominating. You don't have to deal with all of the minor ones. Also, let me know if you need any articles from Newspapers.com clipped. You can search and view raw text without a subscription; you just can't view PDFs of the articles. 14:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Bneu2013 (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll let you know whenever I can. I might be able to fix those issues on the 16th, since most of the time here, I'm not on the computer. 16th will definitely be a free day for me though. 👍 NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@Bneu2013 Also yeah, I may need an article from Newspapers.com. I can't really find a source for the beltway lying around Mecklenburg County. There was a site when I searched online, but it comes from the AARoads Wiki, which is obviously a wiki. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
An NCDOT map of Mecklenburg County should work. You can also use this to cite the route description. Alternatively, you could use a state road atlas like DeLorme. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I might need your help on Newspapers.com. Since I don't have a subscription (maybe might buy one in the future), do you think you could find anything about I-85's history in NC and the incidents and closures? I can't seem to find sources like that from NCDOT (I can mainly just only find about the widening from I-485). If you find any articles from Newspapers, you can let me know. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Specifically the article I was viewing was a February 6, 1984 issue of the Salisbury Post on page 14. The headline of the story was "Indians tied trees in knots as markers". NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979 Yeah, I figured out how to access it yesterday. Only thing I need is clippings, since I don't have a subscription and a bot came and removed the library links. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
If you register an account, and then access the site through WP:TWL, you can then sign in from the landing page from WP:TWL and make clippings. Imzadi 1979→05:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Newspapers isn't even letting me log in. It's telling me "There was an error when loading the form. Please contact customer support." I think the site could be broken right now. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Did you try to log in through The Wikipedia Library? If you have an account and login through the site, there shouldn't be a problem. Also, I'm pretty sure you still have to have a subscription to clip articles. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, when I logged in through TWL, it allows me to read the articles for free. It doesn't let me take clippings of the articles, though, as it tells me I need to register an account. Probably it does require a subscription, but I don't know. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'm actually out of town for vacay, and will only return on the 17th. I'll be able to add the citations then. Oh yeah, one more thing; do you mind scrutinizing the article when I'm done adding the citations? I know that I'm the one who's supposed to be responsible for maintaining it, but I'm not sure at all if it even looks good when I finish. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I've also been looking at Roy's comments on the DYK page, and he's been saying that I need a source to verify the types of terrain I-85 passes through. However, I was also examining the US 13 MD article which is good, and noticed that it didn't have any sources other than Google Maps to show the terrain that it goes through. So I'm not sure if I should use Google Maps, since I can't find a proper source to verify the terrain the Interstate (85) passes through. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I'm finished adding citations and improving the article. Do you mind scrutinizing it to see if it looks okay? I feel like you might have more experience than me in checking over road articles. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I will take a look. With regards to the citations for terrain, I think most road editors would now agree that Google Maps should be used as a last resort. The article you referenced was promoted fifteen years ago when standards were different. I personally prefer to use road atlases like DeLorme, and topographic maps from the USGS if I am citing something extremely precise, like a steep grade or forest cover vs. open fields. This doesn't mean that Google Maps is unreliable, it just sometimes isn't the best source for extremely precise descriptions of terrain. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Do you think you could get a map of I-85 in Davidson County of North Carolina from DeLorme or USGS? Specifically, I'm trying to cite the sentence describing how a stretch of it in the county actually goes briefly to the left of itself to connect with the NC Vietnam Veterans Memorial Park which is around milemarker 96 to 99. If not, then it's going to be really difficult for me. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Here is a DeLorme Map. You can also purchase it on Amazon or a number of other retailers. But you shouldn't have to do that; you can just cite it. You can find individual maps here by zooming into the desired location. I don't know if any maps of individual counties are available, but these (1, 2) are the most up to date maps of what I think you are trying to cite. Actually, you should probably use this map, which explicitly indicates which directions cross over and under each other. DeLorme does the same. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't really want to bother you again, but do you mind doing some research on Newspapers.com for the history of I-75 and any post-construction projects in Kentucky? I'm trying to expand on the article since it looks really barebones. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I guess I could do some research on I-75 in Kentucky; the current size of the article certainly makes it vulnerable to attack from users who don't think we should even have state-level road articles in the first place. Post-construction projects will also definitely be a challenge, since Kentucky is one of those states that seem to think they have to widen all of their interstates. Lastly, I have the publisher extra plan. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Looks good. It will probably need some touch-ups if your intent is to nominate for GA, but other than that, it is fine. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Bneu2013. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Choice Lanes, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I figured out an exploit yesterday to start clipping articles from Newspapers.com, though I have to use Firefox for this, which I'm not much of a fan. I had to copy the gibberish from the console and paste that into the Newspapers proxy, which officially enabled my account on Newspapers.com and now it lets me do clippings, as seen here. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
You may also want to look at citations 60, 62, and 64 to see if you can replace them since I can't find the corresponding Newspapers.com article to replace them with. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I will take a look at them. The article is close. I can probably find you some more sources for the widening projects. I know approximately when most of these were done, but will need to verify more precise dates. Also, I'm pretty sure the southern exchange with I-64 has been slightly modified from its original configuration. This is a stretch of Interstate Highway that I'm actually very familiar with, and so I remember a number of the more recent widening projects (which, BTW, I think were unnecessary) and other work. Bneu2013 (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
And also, while you're at it, can you see if you can find any predecessor highways to I-59 in Mississippi on Newspapers.com? Sorry if I'm being too demanding. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
@NoobThreePointOh: - Sorry for the delayed response; I'm not as active as I once was. The article isn't far, but still needs some work. I will suggest improvements on the talk page. With regards to predecessors, I'm pretty sure US 11 is the main predecessor. Also, I haven't checked, but if the road that I-59 was originally proposed in a previous plan, such as the 1939 Toll Roads and Free Roads or 1944 Interregional Highways reports, this should be mentioned. On an unrelated note, I'm pretty sure previous state level articles about I-59 were merged into the main article years ago due to poor quality. A similar thing happened with I-24, which I plan to eventually propose to split again at some point. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, by some weird miracle, I found some clipping about a trail roughly paralleling I-59, which the page stated was the Jackson's Military Road. I've improved the draft of I-59 in Mississippi to a better quality (though the citations are a bit minimal). To be fair, I-59 doesn't have too much coverage in Louisiana or Mississippi, but I'll definitely follow your advice. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Jackson's Military Road did follow the stretch of US 11 that this stretch of I-59 supplanted. The only issue I can think of with regards to a split is when you get to the Alabama section, since about half of I-59 in Alabama is concurrent with I-20. I've actually thought about this in the past, and I'm not sure what the solution is, since this is such a unique situation, but I guess we'll handle it when it becomes necessary. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
@NoobThreePointOh: - I've suggested improvements on the talk page for starters. I didn't mention basic grammatical fixes, but this will also be something that will need to be addressed. You'll also want to confirm that any major projects have not taken place on this Interstate since it's initial construction, which I'm pretty sure haven't. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bneu2013. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
