Talk:Interstate 85 in North Carolina

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

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

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

NC state highway shields[edit]

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

Exit 68[edit]

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

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

Gallery split[edit]

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

Good article?[edit]

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

GA Review[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

Prose[edit]

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

Verifiability[edit]

Random ref checks:

4: Checks out.

27: Checks out.

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

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

References[edit]

  • 'Another section of I-85 opened to traffic on September 9, 1958, when an 11.3-mile (18.2 km) stretch in Mecklenburg County was opened.' is uncited. Keres🌕Luna edits! 16:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Keresluna  Done. There was a source in the NCDOT meeting archive that showed it, so I used that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your quick replies, I will now pass this article. Cheers! Keres🌕Luna edits! 16:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! :) NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

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

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

References

  1. ^ https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTCountyMaps/PDF_CountyOneSheet/Davidson_CountyMap_OneSheet.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_85_in_North_Carolina&oldid=1223516618"