This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
state highways and other major
roads in the
United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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. --
Triadian03:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Exit 68
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
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: 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.
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: 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.
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
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
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).
@
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: 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.
'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🌕Lunaedits!16:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not immediately obvious what you're talking about, and you should make it clear where this "Davidson County" place is for people who won't realize it's in North Carolina, USA. So ...
I also wonder if you were able to find any explanation for this in your research. I think it's been noted elsewhere as the only significant place in the US with LHT. And maybe we should put that in the intro.
Daniel Case (
talk)
05:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Let me review this. its new, long enough, QPQ not required, but I don't see the fact that it drives on the left anywhere in the article. I used 'Ctrl+F' for left and can only find one mention, and that is not even about the direction.JuniperChill (
talk)
12:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Daniel Case:@
BlueMoonset:@
JuniperChill: For everyone here, this article had to be unpromoted from DYK due to the sourcing coming from Google Maps. After having found a much better source from NCDOT, which this article has a map, I'd like to get approval to see if it now meets the requirements for DYK.
NoobThreePointOh (
talk)
15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(drive by comment) I don't think "
drives on the left" is an accurate description of what happens here. Especially with the link, this seems to indicate that left-hand traffic rules apply (instead, all that happens is that the two directions cross over each other). If we had true left hand traffic, each direction should have its
shoulder and most exits on the left hand side. —
Kusma (
talk)
16:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, and honestly as per my previous comment IMHO we need an explicit source saying it drives on the left rather than just inferring that from a map when nobody else has noted it. As such, the switch from Google maps to a NCDOT map doesn't really address this central concern. The map still only sources that they two roads cross over each other twice, not that it's a "drive on the left" area. Somewhere like the
United States Virgin Islands, on the other hand, it's clearly sourced that they drive on the left. —
Amakuru (
talk)
16:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The reliability of GM is disputed, according to
WP:RSPWP:GOOGLEMAPS. Its neither stated as reliable nor unreliable even after several discussions. But anyway It clearly shows that the I85 switches sides like a
diverging diamond interchange without traffic lights. Since I am new to Wikipedia and DYK, I may as well leave it to another person to review/promote this hook.
JuniperChill (
talk)
19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
RoySmith,
Daniel Case,
NoobThreePointOh, and
JuniperChill: FWIW there is an article here -
[1] which discusses this in detail. I suppose it's questionable whether the "North Carolina Rabbit Hole" is a reliable source, but the guy does seem to have done his research and interviewed the road's designer and suchlike, so interested on opinions on that? —
Amakuru (
talk)
19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Great find! I really like this concept of two rest stops in the middle that can be accessed by (normal) right exits. The author seems to be slightly more "independent journalist" than "blogger" but it isn't completely obvious why he passes our RS guidelines. If we trust his statement that there are almost no sources on this but do not trust his statement about the rest area, we won't be able to continue. —
Kusma (
talk)
19:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I started working my way through the article. To be honest, I have no idea how this passed GA; the sourcing is just abyssimal. For example, I'm looking at the first paragraph of "South Carolina to Charlotte". This entire paragraph is cited to map of Cleveland County which doesn't begin to say most of things the paragraph says. "from Cherokee County", as far as I can tell from the map, it's York County. "Most of the Interstate for its first few miles is generally rural in nature and remains four lanes." No clue how the map supports any of that. "which quietly merges onto I-85". Quietly? The map says quietly? "Interstate meets US 74 at a unique weave interchange" Unique? The maps says it's unique? "Both routes also enter Kings Mountain." Looking at the Google map, that does appear to be an accurate statement, but the cited NC DOT map certainly doesn't show it. But, to get to the matter at hand; the (supposedly) left-hand drive sections of I-85 The entire paragraph that contains this statement is cited to
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/State-Mapping/Documents/thumbs/Davidson.pdf, which doesn't even come close to supporing almost anything in that paragraph. "The landscape becomes more rural"??? "I-85 enters a large forest with tree-lined medians"??? This really should have it's GA revoked as a defective review, but I just don't have the energy to file it.
RoySmith(talk)20:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Many instances of statements which are not supported by the cited references. I marked up a bunch in
Special:Diff/1232453072, but this is just a small sampling, and marking them all up would be more like vandalism than anything else. In many cases, entire paragraphs are cited to a single source, which is often just a DOT map showing major road alignments. I also described a bunch more sourcing problems in
Special:Diff/1232450469. In short, this was a grossly defective GA review.
RoySmith(talk)20:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
RoySmith I've fixed most of the issues described in the "citation needed" templates and even added citations in places where they also might have been needed. I feel that now the article is sufficiently sourced and in proper GA territory now.
NoobThreePointOh (
talk)
04:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What you need to do is go through the entire article and verify that every citation really does back up the statement that is supports. Here's a few more from
Special:Permalink/1232539652:
I-85 narrows back down to six lanes ... [36] not supported by the map
The landscape becomes more rural as I-85 reaches just outside of Lexington ... [37] the cited document does't say anything about the landscape becoming rural.
I-85 enters a large forest with tree-lined medians and crosses Abbotts Creek ... [38] that's a link to a map that says nothing about a "large forest" or "tree-lined medians".
I really need to emphasize this: don't just fix those three and come back and say, "fixed, it's ready for GA now". The problem is endemic. It's going to be a lot of work to go through and fix this up, but it's encumbant on the author(s) to do that work, not count on reviewers like me to find the problems one by one.
RoySmith(talk)17:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I expressed my opinions in
this discussion on the nominator's talk page that this article was not ready for GA before the nomination was picked up. The biggest issues I raised were overreliance on maps for opening dates (when better sources such as Newspapers and DOT reports are available), the lack of information about notable post-construction projects, and formatting. Most of these issues still remain. In addition, I also recently quickfailed the nomination of
Interstate 485 for many of the same reasons.
Bneu2013 (
talk)
04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've been wondering... have there been any notable post-construction projects? I can't seem to find any online other than the Corridor Improvement Project. Maybe I'm not looking too sharply.
NoobThreePointOh (
talk)
06:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If I remember correctly, the interchange with I-77 was recently reconstructed in a pretty big project. That would definitely be worth including. While the article does provide a basic overview of the widening projects, I'm not sure it covers all of them.
Bneu2013 (
talk)
01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A few more sourcing problems:
Because the previous exit is northbound-only, drivers going southbound must use NC 47 to access I-285.[39] I don't see anywhere in the cited source that talks about this.
Once the lanes pass under Johnsontown Road around milemarker 102, the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction.[43] the cited map shows nothing approaching the level of detail which would justify making this statement.
Reading the thread noted by
Bneu2013 above, I see you wrote: I'm usually more familiar with the I-85 article compared to I-40 since I've gone along I-85 more frequently and am living closer to that corridor. I suspect this is a core part of the problem. You have statement like restaurants, businesses, churches, and car dealerships lining the road.[16] and Businesses, restaurants, parks, and buildings can be seen lining the sides of the highway.[53] both of which are cited to sources which say absolutely nothing about these things. I'm guessing that you are relying on your personal knowledge obtained by driving the route yourself. Am I correct? If so, that is
WP:OR and cannot be used. I apologize for my tone, but the requirement to use
reliable published sources to establish
verifiability is a core policy and it's astonishing to me that this level of non-sourcing got as far as passing a GA review.
RoySmith(talk)14:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Why yes, I've driven along I-85, but I usually look at Google Maps when I'm writing the route description for anything. Now I suppose you could consider that as original research. I do apologize for this, however, and Bneu himself has stated that he could find articles from Newspapers.com for it. The only problem is, I ahem... don't have a subscription. So clearly I don't even know what I'm going to do at this point.
NoobThreePointOh (
talk)
15:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Same. What makes it annoying is the fact that I did indeed log in through the library, but for some bizarre reason, it doesn't let me take the clippings. I have no idea if this is my problem or a problem on the site's end. That's also pretty tedious.
NoobThreePointOh (
talk)
17:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply