Talk:Interstate 70 in Maryland/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't done an Interstate highway review in a while!

• "A subsequent plan based on a review of the 1960 plan" - this caught my eye (in the lede). Could you find a way to rephrase to avoid "plan" twice so quickly? You also say "planning" later that sentence.
  • I used more variety in wording in that sentence.  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I wasn't a fan of "scheme", so I changed it. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree with you on "scheme," but your revision changed the meaning of the sentence. The review of the 1960 plan was done in 1962. The new planning process began around 1966. I reverted and replaced scheme with proposal.  VC  23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Hah, easiest solution yet! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• A little minor quibble, but it'd be nice if 83 and 95 were labeled in the map in the Infobox, since they were planned to connect to the highway at one point.
  • I understand your point, but I do not think that change is necessary because those connections were cancelled 30+ years ago.  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, I also just think it'd be nice for showing the route's broader connections, particularly 95. But not that necessary either way. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Large stone markers featuring reliefs of the Korean Peninsula were completed in the median of I-70 in Myersville and Mount Airy in 2004" - I'm a little confused at the "completed". I think "erected" or "placed" would work better, unless I have the context wrong.
  • I changed the verb to "erected."  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• "The third lane eastbound disappears at the top of the ridge" - so it just vanishes? Or does the 3rd lane merge with the 2nd?
  • I changed "disappears" to "ends". Does that solve the problem?  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • That works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• "which has collector-distributor lanes in both directions of both Interstates" - what are they? I'm not that familiar with road terminology.
  • I added a link to collector-distributor road. That redirects to local-express lanes, which is a similar but different concept. Collector-distributor lanes are separate lanes used to separate exits and entrances from interchange ramps from the main road to reduce congestion due to entrances and exits on the main road. C-D lanes tend to only exist through an interchange, while local-express lanes tend to exist for long distances.  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I would still prefer if the term was described in the article somewhat. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I elaborated as follows: "I-70 heads southeast through the interchange, which has collector-distributor lanes in both directions that separate the individual ramps from the main roadways of both Interstates."  VC  23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• "I-70 has a folded diamond interchange South Street" - I think there's a missing word. Also, what's a folded diamond interchange? You mention it a few times without explaining it (I think).
  • I added the missing word in the South Street sentence. A folded diamond interchange is a four-ramp interchange with two straight ramps and two loop ramps. It is more properly classified as a partial cloverleaf interchange, even though many people have the default picture of a partial cloverleaf as a six-ramp interchange. To reduce the confusion, I replaced folded diamond with partial cloverleaf in all instances and added "four-ramp" and "six-ramp" to a few of the phrases to clarify.  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Alright, that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• While crossing through Frederick, when does it increase from four to six lanes?
  • The highway expands to six lanes at the I-270 interchange. I state "I-70 heads east as a six-lane freeway and meets MD 85 ..." The highway is only six lanes for about a mile.  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, I think it could be clearer that it gained a lane from 270. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Eastbound actually gains a lane from US 40 while westbound keeps the third lane through the I-270 interchange, although it disappears shortly after. Since the six-lane segment is only a mile, I am thinking of not mentioning it at all, since to make sense I would need to mention all of the lane changes in that area, which would be too much detail.  VC  23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Around 1975, the suffixed designations were eliminated" - any better estimate? That seems like a pretty major event to have a time estimate.
  • The official approval for change in designation at the federal level occurred in 1975. However, the 1974 official state map shows I-70 and I-270 instead of I-70N and I-70S. I have no idea when the signage in the field was updated. Do you have a suggestion on which year to use?  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, you have proof it happened by 1974. That would work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I replaced "around 1975" with 1974 and added a reference to the 1974 map.  VC  23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• "An overpass and connecting ramp was also constructed at MD 97" - shouldn't that be "were"?
  • You are correct. Changed.  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• "with a macadam surface in 1955." - say wha?
  • The highway was paved in two steps, a macadam first layer and an asphalt second (final) layer. The highway was opened after the macadam layer was completed. It may be too much detail, but I do want to state the highway was open before it was fully completed. Do you have a suggestion on how to improve it?  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • At the very least, a wikilink would be very useful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I added a wikilink for macadam.  VC  23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• The 270 and 370 sections are unsourced.
  • I sourced the 270 and 370 sections.  VC  03:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Other than that it's a good read. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review, Hurricanehink. I addressed all points except the last one, which I will review over the weekend.  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Alright! All that I need is proper sourcing for the 270/370 and I'll be happy to pass. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)