Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:North Carolina Highway 54

Eastern Terminus

The cited source at [1] is incorrect. While this source claims that Highway 54 terminates at the 440 beltline, this is not right. I am currently standing at Hillsborough Street, observing signage indicating that this is still Highway 54. I will obtain photographic documentation of this. In the meantime, please accept this map from Google as evidence that 54 continues on under the beltline. Nimur 19:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that odd. I've seen maps show both. I've been up and down Hillsborough Street many times, but I never bothered to look for signage. There IS however a project to relieve traffic on the street and divert it to Western Boulevard though. I have the newspaper article to prove that. --TinMan 19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Both State-Ends and NC Roads list it as ending at the Beltline, and I have traveled Hillsboro Street inside the beltline MANY times. I always assumed it ended at I-440 as well. I would really appreciate documentation of the official end of this. I will go looking for something on the state DOT website and see if I can find anything hard. Mapsource software and the print NCDOT map (2003) edition seem to indicate its ending at the beltline. Jayron32 20:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, Google Maps and Delorme have it extending thru the beltline. American map shows it ending at the beltline though. As you said, the big NC route websites have it ending at the beltline as well. Not that it means much, because this is not always true, but this picture: [2] shows the NC 54 shield without a directional indication, which sometimes implies that it continues thru the junction. I'm beginning to think that NC 54 was shortened back to the beltway sometime and they just didn't change the signing. Maybe not. --TinMan 21:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is prudent to state that NC 54 continues well past I-440 due to the photographic evidence of signage and the NC 54 designation found in popular maps. Until confirmation regarding the termination status of NC 54 is obtained from the the NC DOT, it is appropriate to err on the side of the facts on the ground. --Srvora

Well, I have conflicting information on the ground. I have some popular local maps showing diffrent cases. Plus there's the issue of signage. I'm assuming there's signage for NC 54 near the Capitol, but from there, I don't know if there is much. Plus, I don't think there are any signs directing both eastbound and westbound one-way streets. That's why I think there might be an error or an inconsistency. But we won't know until we get confirmation. Regardless, I agree with Srvora that we should assume that it goes much further beyond the beltline until it can be confirmed. It doesn't really matter that much though. --TinMan 20:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture you show is the exit sign from the Beltline. It is not indicative of anything, since this exit DOES still put you on 54 even if it DOES end at the beltline. There is still a mystery.Jayron32 00:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess someone should look at some official sources. This is the official NC DOT map of the Raleigh-Durham area: [3]. As you can see, 54 is not shown inside the beltline. Yet, it's not very good at showing where routes really go, so you can't draw too many conclusions from that. Anyone got an update on those photos? I went down Hillsborough Street the other day in the NC state area and found no shields featuring NC 54 anywhere. I didn't go all the way downtown though. --TinMan 20:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I decided to take the long way home and drove along Hillsborough Street from 440 to the capitol and drove around the capitol. There are NO signs for NC 54 anywhere inside the beltway that I can find. In fact, at the Beltline, there is a NC 54 shield pointing straight right after you pass under the underpass, marking the beginning of NC 54. So, case closed, NC 54 terminates at US 1/I-440. --TinMan 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swepsonville

Why add it back on the list of major cities on 54? It's not a major city. All the other cities on the list have a population of at least 10,000 and are familiar to people all along the NC 54 corrider. Swepsonville has a population of 922 and doesn't share anywhere close the the same reknown. Jonathan97X 20:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the reason, then I'll agree. Your edit summary misled me: "del. Swepsonville from major cities list as it is nowhere close to being one on NC 54's route". I thought you were saying it wasn't close to being on the route. --TinMan 00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on North Carolina Highway 54. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:North Carolina Highway 54/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 08:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments coming up... Imzadi 1979 → 08:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I'll note in my comments below any additional suggestions, which aren't strictly required to meet the GA criteria, but those that are meant to make sure that the resulting GA is actually a good article.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See below for specific prose comments
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    But see below for ways to enhance the presentation of your citations. Also, there are issues with the research that need to be fixed, resulting in OR-related concerns.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    You have too many extraneous details in places that need to be excised, and yet you have places where there aren't enough details, or at least information isn't presented well.
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    You should add a caption to the map using |map_notes= in the infobox.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I've debated the initial outcome of my review. I'll give you 7 days, but this article needs serious work to avoid failing. Imzadi 1979 → 10:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: this is an area not really covered by the GA criteria, which only care if they sources used are reliable.

  • Given how many footnotes you have, it might be best if you used {{reflist|30em}} so that they can appear in multiple columns.
  • FN2 should have the author linked and not the publisher.
  • All of the scanned maps cited should note their scales. A best practice when citing a map is to note this information except on variable-scale maps like Google's. If the map doesn't note what its scale is, |scale=Scale not given is an option. If the map doesn't have the scale information printed on it, but a library record gives the scale, enclose the information in brackets, and use "c." for any approximations. You can convert map scales given as "1 inch = 10 miles" to the ratio by doing the math to figure out how many inches are in 10 miles, or "1:633,600" (10 mi x 5280 ft/mi x 12 in/ft = 633,600).
    • For example, on FN3: |scale=[1:696,960]] (if only known from the library record) or |scale=1:696,960 (if the scale were printed on the map someplace in a numerical format of some kind).
  • You can also give credit to the website that's republished the maps to enhance the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT-ness of the citation. For example, on FN3,

|via=University of North Carolina University Libraries (even wikilinking the university name on the first usage).

  • Map citations should also give the city of publication, just like a book, using |location=.
  • All map citations should note the map sections or insets being cited, just as we'd include the pages of a book being cited. Also like a book that lacks page numbers, if the map lacks a section grid, we can't include the in-source location being cited.
  • FN 20 should have |link=no added so that the wikilink to Google is suppressed the second time {{google maps}} is used to craft a citation. Per the idea behind WP:OVERLINK, you only need to link the first usage, not every usage, in footnotes.
  • For FN 17, I'd cite that with |publisher=City of Morrisville, NC rather than use the website address as a website name. The access date shouldn't be in that ISO-style format if the other footnotes aren't using it.
  • FN 18 should give the city of publication and the TV station's call letters as the |location= and |publisher= respectively, even if you want to note that their website is named WRAL.com. When in doubt, the city where the station is located, and not its city of license, would be the |location=. The reporter should be listed as the author as well.
  • FN 19 should include the publication location for the paper. It's a best practice to include that detail separately unless the name of the newspaper includes the city, such as The New York Times (published in New York), but for something like Daily News, I'd always need to include |location=New York.

That all said, your sources are reliable and meet the requirements of GA- or FA-level citation needs. I'd suggest giving them a polish though, as mentioned above.

Prose review: breaking this down by section—

  • Lead
    • "55-mile-long" should have the metric conversion, which you can do with {{convert|55|mi|km|adj=mid|-long}} to give: "55-mile-long (89 km)".
    • Somewhere, you should slip in a mention that this is a state highway in the US. I know where NC is, but non-American readers won't.
    • Spell out and link to US 70 on first usage. Then you can abbreviate all of the other US Highways in the rest of the article, even on first usage by number.
    • "runs concurrent" in this case, the second word should be the adverb form, but you used the adjective. Also, link the verb and adverb to the article, like "runs concurrently".
    • A personal preference, but you should use the fuller links to highways, not "US 15 (NC)" so that readers unsure of what is meant can hover their cursors over the link and get "U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina" to appear in the tool tip if they missed the US 70 reference a few sentences prior. Also, it's better to repeat the type portion of a highway abbreviation after the slash, or "US 10/US 501" than assume readers will know that you're referring to two separate, but concurrent, highways.
    • Link and abbreviate Interstate 40 on first mention in the lead as well. Then you can abbreviate all Interstates on subsequent mentions (linking individual highways on first mention as appropriate), just like with the US Highways.
    • "decomissioned to a secondary road"? I think you mean "recommissioned as a secondary road" (note the spelling error in the original and the slightly different meaning of the suggested phrasing)
  • RD
    • If you properly link and abbreviate the US Highway first mentioned in the lead, you won't need to use the awkward construction here of an abbreviation in parentheses in the middle of a concurrency name. If Church Street carries that highway, just put it in parentheses after the highway name instead of using the slash notation to denote it as a concurrent highway.
    • Flip the order of the footnotes after the first paragraph, otherwise you have [2][1] at the moment.
    • "W Elm Street" and "E. Elm Street" honestly, I'd prefer if you'd spell out the directional prefix, but if you don't, you need to be consistent in applying the period or not to the abbreviation.
    • "...crosses Interstates 40/85 at..." → "... crosses I-40/I-85 at.."
    • "...parrallel [sic] to Haw River.." → "...parallel to the Haw River..." spelling error and missing word
    • "Honda Power Equipment Maunfactering [sic] Plant" probably a superfluous detail to mention the company name. Ditto the name of the store in the second sentence after that. It comes across as a bit unduly promotional of a brand name that isn't a pertinent detail when "along with a factory" or "store" works just as well to convey the important parts.
    • "several industrial type businesses" → "several industrial-type businesses" because that's a compound adjective ("industrial" can't modify "type businesses" and make sense, so you must hyphenate it)
    • "disapate" → "dissipate", "breifly" → "briefly".
    • At this point, I'm going to stop reading the RD. You need to break the section into some subsections, and you need to spell check the whole thing. Until that's done, you have a wall of text full of typos that makes it hard to read.
  • History
    • "The routing for the orginal NC 54 appears on maps begining in 1916 planning the state highway system of North Carolina." → "The routing for the original NC 54 was included on the 1916 map of the planned state highway system in North Carolina." Follow this with the footnote to the 1916 map.
    • "However the NC 54 banner is not offically found on any North Carolina State Highway maps until 1924. The route was routed from NC 75 in Pittsboro southeast to NC 50 in Moncure, connecting the town to US 1." → "The highway was not marked as such on official maps until 1924; it was routed from NC 75 in Pittsboro southeast to NC 50 in Moncure, connecting the town to US 1." Follow this merged sentence with the appropriate footnote as well.
    • "The route was deleted in 1928 and today stands as Moncure Pittsboro Road." → "By 1929, the first NC 54" was redesignated as a secondary road." The map being cited was published in 1929, so you can't say it was renumbered in 1928 without a 1928 map showing it unchanged. This also means you need to fix the reference to the year in the lead to match this change.
    • ""NC 54 was first signed in 1929 as a new highway begining at US 70/NC 10 in Graham and running along its current routing to US 70/NC 10 south of Durham." No, it wasn't "first signed" because you've already established that there was a different NC 54. Try "NC 54 was then signed at the same time as a new highway begining at US 70/NC 10 in Graham and running along its current routing to US 70/NC 10 south of Durham."
    • The 1930 change needs a before-and-after citation, or else you need to change it to "By the next year, ..."
    • "followed along" → "followed"; drop the redundant word.
    • "In 1940" same issue, without a 1941 map being cited, you can't say it actually happened in 1940. In fact, if it appeared in the 1940 map, it probably actually happened in 1939 or earlier!
    • The next sentence finally gives us a pair of consecutive maps for the citations, but you say the change happened in 1953. No, it happened after the 1952 map went to press, normally early in the year, and before the 1953 map was printed. That means the change should have happened in 1952. The same issue with your purported 1956 change.
    • "The previous routing was signed as NC 54A and later became NC 54 Business before being decommisioned in 1987." is uncited in the history section. I'd reword this as "The previous routing was signed as NC 54A,* and it later became NC 54 Business in XXXX* before being decommisioned in 1987.*" (the asterisks correspond to the appropriate footnotes, and in the first case, you could just shift the footnotes from the previous sentence into the middle of this one since they would/should support that sentence and the first half of this one.
    • The 1963 change needs to be fixed to 1962 per the years of the maps cited.
    • The 2001 change can't be specified to that year because you aren't citing a 2001 map. You'll need to say "between 2000 and 2002"
  • Future
  • Bannered routes ("Related routes" would be better and avoid the neologism, by the way)
    • "was commisoned" → "was commissioned" another spelling error. The rest of the section needs the years fixed per the comments above in the history review. Then you need to fix and cite the years in the infobox.
    • Are these the same special route that was renumbered from NC 54A to Bus. NC 54? If so, merge the sections. You can keep the separate infoboxes, but make one prose narrative.
    • The state abbreviation isn't needed on the locations in the infobox. If someone doesn't know by now reading the whole article that this is in NC, well, they're stupid.

As I said in bottom of the checklist, I'll give you 7 days, Ncchild, to work on this. I have serious doubts about whether this can pass in that timeframe though. Realistically, the article needs a good copy edit, and before you could enlist someone to help (if you do), the history section needs to be fixed to clean up the errors based on the sources. The writing needs a lot of work to meet the standard expected of a good highway article. Imzadi 1979 → 10:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be very careful in replying inline to the comments above. You broke the format of the bulleted list by inserted indented lines instead of copying the two asterisks and either adding the colon or a third. Also, Ncchild, if you're going to reply like that, you need to sign every one of your inserted comments, or else it looks like I made all of those comments. Please fix this immediately. Imzadi 1979 → 22:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im So Sorry, I used it for a checklist. I can delete them if you want--Ncchild (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take Another Look at the Rd, I cleaned a lot of the extranous facts up so its more focused.--Ncchild (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Imzadi1979, I have cleaned up the talk page along with doing significant changes to the route description--Ncchild (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ncchild:, can you restore your comments on what you've fixed? Just make sure you add your signature after each one if you're going to list them inline as you did before, and make sure that you're properly indenting them. Imzadi 1979 → 23:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979:, I restored them for you.--Ncchild (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979:, when you get the chance could you look at my fixes. Thanks!--Ncchild (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, your footnotes at the end of each RD paragraph are in the wrong order, each one appearing as <small[2][1], probably because you're using the Google citation for the length in the infobox (making it FN1) and listing it after the map citation in the RD. Honestly, you should find a better source for the length and RJL mileposts, but for now, it can suffice.

Other comments on the updated article include:

  • We need to decide if NC is a "route" state or a "highway" state. By this, I mean the nominated article is entitled "North Carolina Highway 54", but when writing out the full name, you used "U.S. Route 70". In my experience, these would match up, using the same term in both forms.
  • Do we really need the name of the outlet mall? Calling it out feels just a promotional as the factory name I asked you to omit before.

"E. Main Street" yet you spelled out "West Elm Street". Pick a technique and stick with it. "passing by a Quarry" drop the capital letter as it isn't a proper name/noun.

  • "...US 15/US 501/NC 86 at South Columbia Street... US 15/US 501..." the US Highways are wikilinked both times. The second occurrence should be unlinked. Also, can you rephrase those two sentences to avoid naming the same street name twice in rapid succession?
  • My comments about fixing your years in the history have gone partially unheeded. You just cannot say that something happened in 1930 when citing the 1929 and 1930 maps. You could say "By the next year...", but you cannot make the claim you're making in the way you're making it with the sources you're using.
  • "The road which is scheduled to be completed between 2018 and 2021 would serve" → "The road, which is scheduled to be completed between 2018 and 2021, would serve..." add the missing commas, please.

These items need to be fixed at a minimum before promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 05:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979:To try and not mess up the layout (which I probably will with this comment), I'm just going to put my comments here. Everything was completed. I changed US Route 70 to US Highway 70 because it makes more sense and also I here it more often (at least in NC). The outlet mall was really out of place so that was taken out entirely. I missed the E. Elm Street when I went through to fix those kind of problems but it should be good now. I reworked the two sentences because they were redundant anyway. There was obviously a miss understanding about the maps but they should be fine now. The commas were added.--Ncchild (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979:
That didn't work. You have to sign at the same time as the ping. That said, things look good. Imzadi 1979 → 02:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Carolina_Highway_54