Jump to content

Talk:Interstate 355

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 20:03, 10 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleInterstate 355 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 23, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 11, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
January 28, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
November 4, 2009Today's featured articleMain Page
Current status: Featured article


recent edits

I was looking at the recent changes, and it appears as though the extension is done, but I think a bit too much was shaved off the bottom. Some is easy to put back (the part beyond the "Southern Extension" section clearly should not have been removed; i'll put that back shortly), but what about the "Southern Extension" section. Assuming it was completed, it does deserve some editing, but there is still some useful info there, some of which should be merged into the top part of the article since it's now current. (most notable the junctions section of routeboxint) --Chris 02:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. No no no, it's not done. :) They started on it, but I can't drive on it yet. Not 'til at least 2007. The tollway's website is down, but I'll put up when it will done. 'Til then, I'm treating the last 20 changes (unless something useful was added, which is entirely possible) as a giant revert, because the right-hand side table is broken. --Rob 16:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Length

The bridge is not 1.5 miles long. It is actually 1.3 miles long. See our own database: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Plaines_River_Valley_Bridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.169.178 (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - it'll need to be updated with data from the bridge database whenever the data gets there. —Rob (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Planning on nominating this article as a good article once # of edits settles to a reasonable level... 3 days or so. If there's anything notably missing prior you notice prior to its nomination, please note it here. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do

Okay, I think I'm done adding copious amounts of text to the article, unless there's something I've missed about this highway that I just don't know about yet. Will nominate for GA on Sunday, 11/18. —Rob (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Assessment

Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment. GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
    (Even if was only started 2 days ago!)
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Further examination of my findings:

  • The article contained no original research. checkY
  • The prose was readable, and could address a wide-range of audiences.checkY
  • References were provided, and were verifiable. checkY
  • All images were appropriately captioned. checkY
  • No images are/were flagged as having no source, or no licensing information. checkY
  • Only thing to do in my opinion, is to remove some repitition of the word "tollroad". I understand it is one, but it can get rather tedious when the same word crops up. But that's nothing to prevent an article gaining GA. ☒N

After reading the article, I am happy to pass this article, per all my above reasoning. Congratulations to all the users involved. Well done. Rudget.talk 17:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's just hard to think of synonyms for the word "tollway". Thanks for your help! —Rob (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of older Chicago Tribune articles to investigate

Because I have not yet reviewed the text of these articles, they shouldn't be cited as of yet. When they are cited, the URL may be useful, but mostly likely not - it will be reviewed on microfiche. —Rob (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unknown (1936-07-10). "New section of Route 53 now is open to traffic". Retrieved 2008-01-20. - only 59 words long
  • Unknown (1960-01-14). "Ask bids to construct Lisle highway". Chicago Daily Tribune. Retrieved 2008-01-20. - again, only 66 pages long
  • Chicago Tribune Editorial Board (1964-10-23). "A preposterous proposal". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-01-20.
  • Unknown (1965-01-17). "Clergy joins opposition to expressway". Chicago Tribune. p. 4. Retrieved 2008-01-22. - west section
  • Yuenger, James (1966-01-12). "LORENZ BACKS ROUTE 53 PLAN, CALLS FOR O.K." Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-01-20.
  • Unknown (1966-04-03). "Study Du Page Expressway Plan". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-01-22. - section 10
Opps I already added some sources there sorry. We'll have to decide which ones are more valuable, mines are these because we can't have too many citations there. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but there might be more content coming, too, depending on what's found here. Plus the old map doesn't show IL 53. —Rob (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I used it as a temporary source so the FAC stays alive, remove it when you add a better source . —JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itasca expressway searches

The issue is, the Eisenhower extension from modern-day I-355 to York Road in Elmhurst gets lumped in with the part from the Addams Tollway to Army Trail Road. I'm trying to figure out what came first, or if it was all built at once. —Rob (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Elsasser, Glen (1963-05-22). "Itasca seeks rerouting in highway plan". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-01-22. - west section. Summary: Itasca officials object I-90 extension (when I-290 was still called I-90)
  • "Pet cemetary lies in path of roadway plan". Chicago Tribune. 1965-09-28. Retrieved 2008-01-22. - section 2. Funny enough, this should be the evidence required, because the expressway north of Itasca refers to I-290 between exits 5 and 7.
  • "I-90 extension work set for early in year". Chicago Tribune. 1969-12-07. Retrieved 2008-01-22. - west section. Summary: 2.68 miles (4.31 km) of new road built in 1970 from Wood Dale Road to Itasca Road west of Elmhurst. Probably the "straight as an arrow" piece.

Final timeline

  • 1964-1966 - Initial portion of I-355 built on north end, including portions to NW tollway
  • 1970-1972 - I-90 completed to NW tollway, renamed I-290

Exit list

There are a few places where it appears that the exit list does not match signs. Please change them if that is in fact the case (i.e. signs have not been updated):

  • I-80 - Iowa, Indiana [1][2]
  • 63rd Street, Hobson Road

--NE2 23:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, 63rd Street / Hobson Road and Maple Avenue. The exits no one takes pictures of. However, 63rd Street is definitely Hobson Road. —Rob (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant map

The "detailed map" in the article is rather redundant. Should it be removed? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A larger map in the article itself adds value to the route description section. Most people can't see anything of value in the infobox map. By the way, the history section was placed above the route description (violating US:IH guidelines, yadda yadda) because the GA reviewer suggested that the history section is far more interesting than the route description, and I agreed. —Rob (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... actually you can view a larger picture by clicking on the map on the infobox. Plus, no other route description has such a map. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's just an extra step that shouldn't be necessary. An east-west 3di route probably wouldn't have this problem - the map would be more easily visible in the infobox. To be able to follow the route as the reader reads about it is a benefit I'm willing to keep. —Rob (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

I believe the article needs more photos. Could we add some more? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 18:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has three good-quality photos. I think one of the southern extension out in the farm would be a good addition (before the billboards and commercial development take over), but I'm not traveling in that general direction anytime soon. —Rob (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could help, but I don't live in Illinois... ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 19:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Control cities

Does it make sense for this article to have a control city box like at Borman Expressway?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It originally had one, but it was deleted per an "oppose" comment on the FAC. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, WP:USRD/MOS doesn't mention anything about control city boxes. So it's an open question at the moment, but I'll bring it up over there. —Rob (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er... no, wait, I found it. Sections and boxes like "Communities along the route" and "Major cities" should be removed and be in the "Route description" section instead. —Rob (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per a discussion somewhere in the archives of USRD, it was determined to get rid of those boxes on state highway and U.S. Route articles; however, no decision was made about control city boxes on Interstate Highway articles since these actually convey information not found elsewhere in the article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

old statement

The last paragraph of the "Route description" section says, "Due to increasing congestion, the Veterans Memorial Tollway will be widened to four lanes between 75th Street and I-88 in 2008." 2008 obviously passed, so what exactly happened with this plan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge3 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated article, construction complete-RoadView (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swap position of route description and history

Any chance of doing this in order to go along with US Roads-Manual of Style? Personally, I find it easier to read when the road is described first and then has the history explained.-RoadView (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both orders have been deemed acceptable. There's no reason to change it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

This is an article about a road. How is this today's featured article? How is it even an article? Are roads notable? It reads like a direcrtory or tourist guide, for god sake it has a list of exits. This is why wikipedia is seen as a joke by so many. The content we want to feature as the best Wikipedia has to offer is an article about a road. If it wasn't todays featured article I'd send it to AFD. Perhaps I should make the road outside my window an article too. Stupidstudent (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize a real human has written this page, correct? Please respect the work of others, even if you disagree with its presence on WP. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies I ment no offense to anyone who contributed to this article. My objection is not the standard of writing which is quite high. My objection is the article isn't encyclopedic. WP is not ment to be a directory or guide book. Stupidstudent (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a standard of notability for roads - see WP:USRD/NT. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not a policy it's not a projects place to decied what is and isn't notable. They have obvious conflict of interests. It being notable is not the only issue, even if the road is notable is a list of exits( WP:NOT )? Not to mention the whole project only deals with US roads perhaps it need s one of these:P

{{Globalize/US}} Stupidstudent (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, User:Scott5114/Highway notability FAQ - describe why we consider roads notable. WP:USRD/P lists the many debates where people have tried to delete road articles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you have a global view of something that only exists in the state of Illinois? That still doesn't mean it isn't notable and not worth covering in WP. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that it is silly to put this article on the front page of Wikipedia. Not because it's not a high-quality and complete article, but because the subject is rather pedestrian (so to speak). As noted above, Wikipedia already has a reputation among some for being lightweight and heavily pop-culture oriented, and featured articles like this reinforce that image.
And this is from an editor who has contributed (mostly photos) to several roads articles (e.g. Indiana State Road 727 and Indiana State Road 120). Mr. Harman (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how a highway could be considered pop-culture to be honest... –Juliancolton | Talk 03:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THe globalize was a joke but one with a point it seems to sugest only notes in the US are notable, while I know that's not your intention it's crepping more and more into WP. Am not saying all roads are not notable. But your arguement seems to be because the road has interstate before in it's name it magically becomes notable. Notability is not inherited if a road was the subject of several films or songs it might be notable. If a terible acident happened on it might be notable. If it was the subject of a political controversy it might be notable. What I am saying is alot of the content is both not notable and not encylopedic. Ie a list of exits etc? Stupidstudent (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, "Interstate" is not an arbitrary term, but rather a standard for certain roads; such highways are usually far more traveled, as well as larger, than state, county, and local roads. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
then why does the article refer to it as an "auxiliary route"? Stupidstudent (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an Auxiliary Interstate Highway, which is indeed still an Interstate (or in this case, Instrastate) highway. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give up, Stupidstudent. This is nothing more than than the usual US bias in the English Wikipedia. There's still plenty of stuff that is of enormous interest to the global population, we just have to let the yanks have their fun whilst the rest of the world get on with shaping all our futures. Markb (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a while, there WAS political controversy involving I-355, particularly the new extension that was completed in 2007. I know all you non-US people aren't going to like it, but Wikipedia is a US-based company. Ignore it, get used to it, or find a site from your own country to visit. Giltramirez (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Someone has the wrong idea of a "Featured Article". I don't really care if you think it's not worth writing about, but it's been through the vetting process and I covered every major aspect worth writing about, down to the Emerald Hine's Dragonfly. If you want to argue against the structural importance of roads... do a research on the importance of the Interstate Highway System to interstate commerce, something not relevant to this article. If you want to argue that this article is U.S.-centric... it's a road physically located in Illinois. I don't see how it could possibly affect anybody outside of Illinois, but where it touched on broader, appropriate points (see: dragonfly, construction techniques), I did. —Rob (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bike Trail

The information about the new bike trail is a bit dated. I added some info on it back in June, but I only bothered reading the one article. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the news has been happening offline (read: "things I have overheard at bicycle routes meetings in the past 4 months"), but the short answer is that the cities need to finish the trail, and a certain recession has shut out most funding for those trails for the time being. —Rob (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burt, Sheila (July 17, 2009). "New start at trails' ends - Plans to link new south suburban paths into the old network through a coherent plan will bring the region together, officials say". Chicago Tribune. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  • Lafferty, Susan DeMar (July 1, 2009). "Villages looking to connect bike trails along 355". Joliet Herald News. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Not sure if the info is worth adding, but they do mention specific areas being connected and a ComEd easement. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Increase

Rates have increased; and as a result, the information in the "Route description" section is out of date. I would update the information; but there is a citation, and I am not sure how to handle that. The northernmost two toll plazas (Boughton Road and Army Trail Road) now charge $1.90 cash and $0.95 for cars with I-PASS and E-ZPass. Visit the www.illinoisvirtualtollway.com website to verify. 76.16.49.113 (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - RoadView (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Interstate 355. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Interstate 355. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Interstate 355. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences in writing that do not make any sense

Sentences in writing that do not make any sense. Read the following carefully:
"The tollway authority had route of the new extension through Will County and a small portion of Cook County, which together comprised one of Illinois' fastest-growing regions at the time."
The verbs are particularly bad.05:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.215.180.7 (talk)

Information icon Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). –Fredddie™ 12:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_355&oldid=1205930216"